[28324] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland M.J. Meyer)
Tue Apr 25 17:51:11 2000
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Mark Persiko'" <persiko@bvsd.k12.co.us>,
"'Carter, Gregory'" <omni@dynmc.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Cc: <jrivera@stei.com>, <srabalais@stei.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:49:21 -0700
Message-ID: <007001bfaf00$1dbb7af0$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <A8603901092FD31197FB00C00D00C60B010557@admin.bvsd.k12.co.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In my experience, this is not a good thing. WinNT PDC's REALLY want to =
be master browsers as well. Weird things break when they are not =
allowed to do that. If you have a PDC anyway, then there is no good =
reason not to let it be the local master browser. This means htat they =
also need to be a WINS server. I can't, for the life of me, understand =
why folks don't want to allow this. It's right on up there with those =
that won't let a Unix server be a local DNS secondary ... stupid. =
Centralizing an inherently distributed system usually results in one =
getting seriously bitten in the ass...hard. Something usually suffers, =
either performance or manageability. It also results in too much =
undocumented "magic", which will kill your entire systems within =
two-years down-stream.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Mark Persiko
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:14 PM
> To: 'Carter, Gregory'; 'nanog@merit.edu'
> Cc: 'jrivera@stei.com'; 'srabalais@stei.com'
> Subject: RE: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
>=20
>=20
>=20
> We use ip helper-address in our network at each
> subnet and we haven't had any problems with PC's=20
> finding the WINS servers. It seems like a very
> scalable way to handle WINS and DHCP relays.
>=20
> We do get into problems with multiple NT servers=20
> on the same subnet that all want to be master browsers,
> which we resolve by hacking the NT registry to force=20
> master browsing on only one server.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Mark
>=20
> - Mark C. Persiko, persiko@bvsd.k12.co.us
> - MIS Dept, Boulder Valley Public Schools
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carter, Gregory [mailto:omni@dynmc.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 1:26 PM
> > To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
> > Cc: 'jrivera@stei.com'; 'srabalais@stei.com'
> > Subject: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Greetings!
> >=20
> > I have a bit of a philosophical question regarding the use of=20
> > a WINS Proxy
> > versus using Cisco's IP Helper to forward UDP datagram=20
> > packets off to a central
> > WINS server. Let me give some background to the setup of the=20
> > company I work
> > for.
> >=20
> > Currently we are noticing that we have too many WINS servers=20
> > running throughout
> > our divisions and some of our servers are corrupting the WINS=20
> > database. As a
> > whole our IS divisional managers will be meeting soon and=20
> > would like to discuss
> > this situation and limit our WINS servers down to one per=20
> > division. We have a
> > total of five divisions; the fifth is a central office where=20
> > for the most part
> > the whole company looks to as the head office. Each division=20
> > is also split up
> > into regions, which usually have a hub site that is connected=20
> > up to the division
> > hub site then to our main hub site (the fifth division). All=20
> > of our locations
> > are setup on frame relay and all of them have Cisco 1600=20
> > routers. Currently we
> > have a WINS server at the division site, and two regions with=20
> > WINS servers in
> > them. The Cisco routers use IP helper at our spoke sites to=20
> > forward the UDP
> > datagram packets from the local LAN of the spoke sites up to=20
> > the WINS server for
> > that region. The regional WINS servers then push pull up to=20
> > the division WINS
> > server and the division WINS server push pulls up to the=20
> > company's main hub site
> > (fifth division) thereby syncing the entire company.
> >=20
> > By limiting the divisions to a single WINS server obviously=20
> > the regional WINS
> > servers will either need to go away or they will need to be=20
> > replaced with WINS
> > proxy servers that will proxy the requests back up to the=20
> > divisional server.
> >=20
> > My concern is to whether it would be wiser for us to dump the=20
> > regional WINS
> > servers altogether and change IP helper to point back to the=20
> > division WINS
> > server instead, or to go ahead and shut down the regional=20
> > WINS servers and
> > replace them with WINS proxying. I have come to the=20
> > conclusion that either way
> > would take the same amount of bandwidth, and as far as=20
> > redundancy is concerned
> > we can simply change the secondary WINS server address in=20
> > DHCP to the main hub
> > site's address.
> >=20
> > Does anyone here have a relevant opinion on this matter, or=20
> > any reasons not to
> > implement one or the other of the solutions?
> >=20
> > +(Omni@Dynmc.Net)---------------------------------------------
> > ---------+
> > | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX=20
> > Technologies |
> > | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID=20
> > 1024/7DF9C285 |
> > | omni@interx.net omni@itstudio.net omni@undernet.org=20
> > omni@webpop3.com |
> > +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3=20
> > ]----------+
> >=20
> >=20
