joey
Thu Nov 20 10:10:11 CST 2003
thanks Javier thats set me on the right tracks
thanks again
>-----Original Message-----
>Two hub/switch is the best approach... and you could have
it however you
>like.
>
>However, in the setup you are proposing... would be ok if
you set the subnet
>netmask to 255.255.255.0. In any event, you should be
using private IP
>adresses so it should be something like 10.10.0.x and
10.10.1.x.
>
>--
>-Javier
>
><< SBS ROCKS !!! >>
>
><anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:0b9b01c3af70$3820d6a0$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> I thought it would be a two hub/switch option.
>>
>> just a little Q about subnet'ing if i understand it right
>> all i would need to do is assign a seperate group of Ip
>> addresses to the new domain i.e
>>
>> if the network was
>> 100.0.0.0
>> then this would be the starting point of my first network
>> (not using this address because .0.0 is reserved)
>> then my sub net would start
>> 100.0.1.0
>>
>> am i on the right tracks
>> need to read up about this,
>>
>> but a new hub/switch sounds easier
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> Exchange 2003 comes with SBS 2003. am i right in thinking
>> >> that Outlook 2000(client side)will work with Exchange
2003 ?
>> >
>> >Yes... no problem with that.
>> >
>> >> and we are thinking of having Two domain servers (SBS 4.5
>> >> and SBS 2003) running different domains, but plugged
into
>> >> the same HUB some clients will stay on the existing
Domain
>> >> and some will transphare accross.
>> >
>> >I would get a new hub/switch... but it will work, just put
>> them on different
>> >subnets.
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>