How to force machine to choose a network.

Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running Linux on their users' workstations.

They are running Windows XP Pro. I'll see what I can find out about ROUTE.EXE. Thanks.

Sure! Under Linux or *BSD, just set up the routing tables for each machine to the other to use the firewire interfaces. `route` is your friend.

Even MS-Windows has ROUTE.EXE , but they've changed the syntax.1`

-- Robert

:Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running :Linux on their users' workstations.

"On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."

True, but I did mention that we had 4000 machines/desktops. That should have been a sign that we are pretty big.

Also, I already accepted responsibility for the missing information. Tell me how your post is relevant to the subject and helps?

I'm not picking on you. I just see a lot of bandwidth wasted with people posting unnecessary flames that do nothing to help anyone other than possibly making the flamer feel all proud of themselves for being "smart".

:> :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I :> :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running :> :Linux on their users' workstations.

:> "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."

:True, but I did mention that we had 4000 machines/desktops. That :should have been a sign that we are pretty big.

In the usual industry categorizations, 4000 desktops is only considered SMB, Small To Medium Business.

My local department has more than 450 networked devices for 150 employees. We're about 1/25th of of our overall organization, so our overall organization probably has more than 10000 networked systems. As I recall, we aren't big enough to make the Fortune 3000.

The only official organization-wide policy about choice of OS is, "We don't -promise- that non-Windows systems or pre-Windows XP will work with the official email system or the integrated financial system."

:> :I guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running :> :Linux on their users' workstations.

You weren't talking about a large number of machines, you were talking about exactly -two- machines with special characteristics relative to your other machines. With your mention of 'firewire', I would have guessed Apple MacIntosh running OS X. 'firewire' is Apple's pre-standard product, not used in the Windows world (which uses the IEEE standard number.)

You also mentioned that the regular LAN was 10BaseT. We started deploying 100 Mb six years ago, and we were definitely not "early adopters". My -expectation- would be that a Fortune 400 company would invest the infrastructure resources it needed in order to communicate efficiently.

Your Windows desktops all have 100 Mb built in (unless you've been holding back to 5 year old computers too), and any replacements will have gigabit built in. Reputable managed gigabit layer 3 switches can be found for less than $US100/port ($US15/port for unmanaged consumer-level level 2 gigabit switches.) These days, I don't think it makes economic sense to stick with 10BaseT unless the company is -really- cash-strapped. If layer 3 gigabit isn't affordable, then go onto eBay and buy a bunch of used 100 Mb managed switches (about $US10/port) and deploy those -- or to save shipping and handling costs, you can probably buy them by the pallet-load from used equipment vendors.

Fair enough. We're about 30000 employees if I had to guess, but only about 4000 PCs at my location. Regardless, you are correct... 4000 isn't all that many computers.

Good point but many of us continue to call it Firewire even though we are really talking about IEEE. Old habits die hard.

First off... Fortune 400's are often the last to adopt new technology. We had OS/2 as our primary OS until almost 2000. Pretty scary, huh?

I think the machines themselves actually do have 100 Mb built-in but the routers are 10 Mb so the speed of the LAN is 10 Mb. Whatever the reason, the LAN shows 10 Mb.

Price is irrelevant when it comes to the beauracracy of a big company. In fact, it is common knowledge that if we recommend a piece of free software, it will never get approved. Recommend a $20,000 USD piece of software that isn't quite as good and it'll get approved almost immediately. It's almost an inside joke and just make one feel that Dilbert's life is all too real.

:I think the machines themselves actually do have 100 Mb built-in but :the routers are 10 Mb so the speed of the LAN is 10 Mb. Whatever the :reason, the LAN shows 10 Mb.

In a case such as that, I would think about upgrading the LAN switches to 100 Mb+, and putting a LAN switch between the rest of the LAN and the router. That way, traffic within the LAN would flow at 100 Mb+, and the bottleneck wouldn't be any worse than it was before.

I'd be tempted, in a topology like that, to make that intermediate LAN switch (connecting the router) a Layer 3+ switch, so as to do the routing for local IP spaces at the new faster speeds, only requiring the slower 10 Mb link for traffic going off-LAN.

But this would of course depend upon the traffic patterns.

Roger that, but I'm not the network guy and don't even work in the I.T. department, so the day they let me get near a router will be a cold day in hell indeed.