If I understand what's done here it's incorrect. Site A has a 10.10.10.x
network while site B has 10.3.x.x. This is goodness and a simple router
between them would make all happy and well.
Adding devices at site 10.3.x.x addresses at site A is where it goes
wrong. How do those devices route to site B when they have the same
subnet? Adding additional interfaces with new IP addresses and routes
will only complicate the matter.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
On 5/14/2014 9:01 PM, franz9000 wrote:
Old cust called - they have been bought by another company.
Local Power i (A) has a 10.10.10.x network (very small)
New company - SAP -(B) a 10.3.x.x network.
They added some pc's and printers with 10.3.x.x addresses at site A to communicate with site B.
They added a line description for 2nd ethernet card and gave it a 172.16.x.x address.
added a route in system (A) that all 10.3.x.x is through the gateway router (172.16.x.x) w/preferred interfaceof 2nd eth line.
Now the request is for system A to allow printing to 10.3.x.x printers at site A.
Ping gets no answer (I assume due to routing statement)
They set up a host name for printers, and tried defining local printer with host name - no ping.
Called me.. their network people said we "should" be able to print to the local lan printer (with non-local address...)
Are there any options?
Printers not capable of 2nd address.