@tim_g said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

There are places where router and firewall merge and can't be pulled apart - and that is NAT. A NAT translation is assumed to be part of the routing functions, but is a firewall. NAT literally makes the router and the firewall be the same component and function. Of course, in theory, you can have a router that doesn't do NAT, but in the real world, no one has made one since the early 1990s, and maybe not even then.

Exactly. When packets reach the NAT and have nowhere to go, they get dropped. That's firewall.

Yeah, NAT is also not the firewall.

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

The key reason that we state that firewalls and routers are one and the same is because the one thing that is most important is that no one come away thinking that there is a router that isn't a firewall. The terms are literally used interchangeably to the point that you never know what someone means when they say one or the other.

Then this is part of the problem. Why not refer to them as router/firewalls or something more reasonable? If I said, "I'm going into the firewall to program these static routes", it wouldn't sound right.

So to protect people from confusion and not knowing how to protect themselves, we state it in that way. Specifically to avoid confusion where it is most likely, and most dangerous.

Yet it has caused confusion.

Ok, here is another example of what I am trying to express here:

At work, I have a bunch of Dell PowerConnect switches - 5500 and N3000 series. These are referred to and sold as switches. However, they provide multi-layer functions, beyond just L2 switching. Some of the functions they provide are: switching, routing, DHCP server. Does that mean I can refer to this switch as a router instead of a switch? How about if I start calling the switch a server? I wouldn't, because it's not correct. If I said that a switch and router are the same thing, people would be quick to correct me because they are not the same thing.

@tim_g said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 A router is simply a hardware firewall.

No, that is not correct. It is a gross over-simplification. Routing and firewalling functions are two completely different roles. Yes, routers almost always come with a firewall, but they are absolutely not the same thing.

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

Second, a router is always a firewall, the two are always the same thing, have been for decades.

I still can't believe you said this... really makes it clear that you aren't playing with a full deck of cards.

If you think that they are different, explain how. Or show an example of some at least. Instead of saying I'm crazy, explain what you mean as you aren't presenting information, just claiming that basic industry common knowledge is wrong. If the whole industry is wrong, what do you know that we don't? Attacking the person, and not the argument, is the greatest sign of agreement - just tends to indicate that you know it is true but dislike that that is the truth.

Well based on what you originally said, you were claiming a firewall and a router were the "same thing". You literally said that. They aren't the same thing because they are two different systems that do two different things. Routers route packets between different networks and firewalls allow or deny traffic based on specified rules. Pretty simple and I'm sure you already actually know that.

My point is that while they might always go together in the same piece of equipment, they really aren't the "same thing". You're going to confuse people by telling them they are the same thing and I think that's secretly your intent.

Here is the original quote you are referring to: "Second, a router is always a firewall, the two are always the same thing, have been for decades. The idea that you even CAN separate the router and firewall is silly, while it's possible no separate devices have been on the market since the late 1990s."

This looks nothing like what you claim that I said. In the original quote I was extremely clear in explaining exactly what you claim I was trying to make confusing. I point out even that you CAN separate them, but no one has done so. And that they've been the same thing [devices] for a long time, but not always.

How am I confusing someone like this? And with this level of explanation, how can you honestly claim that you think I'm trying to mislead someone when I took the time to make it so obvious that they were separate, but always combined?

Look. Really all I'm trying to say is that you should have maybe phrased it as "a router and a firewall always go together", because saying they are the same thing is a very gross over-simplification. It would be like saying the engine in a car is the same thing as the transmission. They always go together, but they are not the same thing. You said they were the same thing, I am saying they are not. I am saying they are not the same thing, because that is the correct thing to say to somebody who says they are the same thing. You can dance around it all you want with your paragraphs of words, but the fact of the matter is you were incorrect, at least in how you described it, and you should just accept that.

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

Second, a router is always a firewall, the two are always the same thing, have been for decades.

I still can't believe you said this... really makes it clear that you aren't playing with a full deck of cards.

If you think that they are different, explain how. Or show an example of some at least. Instead of saying I'm crazy, explain what you mean as you aren't presenting information, just claiming that basic industry common knowledge is wrong. If the whole industry is wrong, what do you know that we don't? Attacking the person, and not the argument, is the greatest sign of agreement - just tends to indicate that you know it is true but dislike that that is the truth.

Well based on what you originally said, you were claiming a firewall and a router were the "same thing". You literally said that. They aren't the same thing because they are two different systems that do two different things. Routers route packets between different networks and firewalls allow or deny traffic based on specified rules. Pretty simple and I'm sure you already actually know that.

My point is that while they might always go together in the same piece of equipment, they really aren't the "same thing". You're going to confuse people by telling them they are the same thing and I think that's secretly your intent.

@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:

Second, a router is always a firewall, the two are always the same thing, have been for decades.

I still can't believe you said this... really makes it clear that you aren't playing with a full deck of cards.

@dashrender said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

I’m confused on the Hyper-v admin you made. Was it local on Hyper-v? If yes then how could any other computer log into itself as that user?

I chose option 3 from the sconfig menu ("add local administrator") and then for that I chose a domain user. Then, I was attempting to connect to my Hyper-V server through the Windows 10 Hyper-V Manager as that user.

@tim_g said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

Finally, after all that.. I still had trouble connecting from the Windows 10 computer through Hyper-V Manager. After another hour of pounding my head, I finally got connected.

I had to:

1. Run Hyper-V Manager as administrator and use the account that was a local admin on Hyper-V.
2. Connect to server: hv01 - and do nothing with the "connect as other user" option

Prior to this, I was just running Hyper-V Manager not as admin (my regular domain user account) and then I would choose "connect as other user" and put in the credentials of the domain account which was local admin on the Hyper-V server. That always lead to the permissions error.

I thought you were using a user that was a member of the "Domain Admins" group?

I would log into my main Windows 10 system as my regular domain user but then whenever I ran Hyper-V Manager, I would attempt to connect to the Hyper-V server as the domain admin account that was also local admin on the Hyper-V server. I had also tried running Hyper-V Manager as admin and used the same DA account but it didn't work -- this was before I realized I was using the wrong ISO.

Between all of the things I tried to get it to work, I lost track of the steps. So once I got the correct thing installed, I wasn't sure what way I should run Hyper-V Manager and connect.. So essentially, if I am logged into my Windows 10 system as a regular user, I need to run Hyper-V Manager as the user that has admin access to the Hyper-V server.

It's been a pain in the ass but at least I've learned a lot out of this.

Finally, after all that.. I still had trouble connecting from the Windows 10 computer through Hyper-V Manager. After another hour of pounding my head, I finally got connected.

I had to:

1. Run Hyper-V Manager as administrator and use the account that was a local admin on Hyper-V.
2. Connect to server: hv01 - and do nothing with the "connect as other user" option

Prior to this, I was just running Hyper-V Manager not as admin (my regular domain user account) and then I would choose "connect as other user" and put in the credentials of the domain account which was local admin on the Hyper-V server. That always lead to the permissions error.

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 This post is what I had to set for firewall on the Hyper-V Server after joining the domain.

https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016/10

After that I posted some images of what I did to setup teaming and such.

Great, thanks. I will get on that once the install is finished. I've been working on this for about 3 days now. Unreal.

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

So... if I just install Hyper-V Server 2016 WITH the Desktop Experience, I would be able to manage VM's by directly remoting into the server, right? Then I wouldn't have to mess with the Hyper-V Manager in Windows 10..

Well... that's not a product option. To do that you have to buy and install a full Windows Server license, and then that license is tied to Hyper-V. If you od that, then you can admin it locally. But if you are even thinking about that, it's time to be on KVM.

See this is why I am so confused.

1. I can go to Microsoft and download Windows Server 2016, which when you install it, has options to install as core or GUI. Either way, I have to pay for a license because it's not free, core or GUI, RIGHT?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server-2016
2. I can go to Microsoft and download the "evaluation" of Hyper-V Server 2016, which when I install, has the option to install standard evaluation, or desktop experience evaluation. I can just use the standard no GUI and it's 100% free, RIGHT?? So then what does it matter if I choose to install the free hypervisor with the desktop experience?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016

If both things are separate things, but installing the Desktop Experience means they are the same thing and I have to pay for a license to use Hyper-V, then I don't understand why they are selling them together... or wait is it because they want money??

Now I am not trying to make assumptions here or not thinking in a sensible GD way. I am just trying to navigate my way through options for installing Hyper-V, having it be free, and having it actually ****ing work.

Wait, when the fuck did they add a GUI to Hyper-V. I do not recall seeing that when I setup my last Hyper-V Server 2016 instance 8 months ago.

I don't know but I swear to God that I saw in three different attempts of installing hyper-v 2016 that there was the second option of having a desktop experience installed.

I'm downloading it now. I have a crappy old desktop that may support it here that i can attempt the initial install on.

Also, this thread is what I did on a defualt AD domain.

https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016.

about halfway down I posted the firewall rules I enabled and such.

I'm downloading it now too. I do notice the file name is a bit different than the ISO I had downloaded before, about 3 months ago.

• Old file: 14393.0.161119-1705.RS1_REFRESH_SERVER_EVAL_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO
• New file: 14393.0.161119-1705.RS1_REFRESH_SERVERHYPERCORE_OEM_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO

Maybe, just maybe, I am a total fucking idiot and somehow mixed my ISOs up...

You are a total idiot based on THAT post.

The first is Server. The second is Hyper-V Server

pfffffhahahahahahahahah... WHAT THE FUCK.

Blame MS for making it confusing as fuck in the name of licensing dollars.

No one will hold it against you.

Yeah this time during installation it didn't give me any install options. Just installing straight Hyper-V... sigh

I never cease to amaze myself at my own ability to constantly screw up due to not paying attention.

Sorry guys and thanks for your help. Thanks for dealing with me.

@tim_g said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

There is Windows Server 2016, and HyperV Server 2016. One you do not use as a hypervisor (even though you can), the other you do.

Don't confuse the two.

Yes see but I already know this!!!!!!!!!!! I swear I thought I downloaded the correct ISO. I WAS CAREFUL TO DOWNLOAD THE RIGHT ISO!!

Ok I swear I thought I downloaded the correct ISO. It was directly after I had a conversation with Scott over the phone about my VoIP debacle, and we got into servers and he told me about Hyper-V being completely free and blew my little fucking mind. SO I rushed out to Microsoft and downloaded it, and I know I KNOW I went to the right spot because I was specifically careful to download the file under "Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2016" and not the one for regular Server 2016.

If this was my problem all along then I'm going to owe you all an apology and a beer.

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

So... if I just install Hyper-V Server 2016 WITH the Desktop Experience, I would be able to manage VM's by directly remoting into the server, right? Then I wouldn't have to mess with the Hyper-V Manager in Windows 10..

Well... that's not a product option. To do that you have to buy and install a full Windows Server license, and then that license is tied to Hyper-V. If you od that, then you can admin it locally. But if you are even thinking about that, it's time to be on KVM.

See this is why I am so confused.

1. I can go to Microsoft and download Windows Server 2016, which when you install it, has options to install as core or GUI. Either way, I have to pay for a license because it's not free, core or GUI, RIGHT?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server-2016
2. I can go to Microsoft and download the "evaluation" of Hyper-V Server 2016, which when I install, has the option to install standard evaluation, or desktop experience evaluation. I can just use the standard no GUI and it's 100% free, RIGHT?? So then what does it matter if I choose to install the free hypervisor with the desktop experience?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016

If both things are separate things, but installing the Desktop Experience means they are the same thing and I have to pay for a license to use Hyper-V, then I don't understand why they are selling them together... or wait is it because they want money??

Now I am not trying to make assumptions here or not thinking in a sensible GD way. I am just trying to navigate my way through options for installing Hyper-V, having it be free, and having it actually ****ing work.

Wait, when the fuck did they add a GUI to Hyper-V. I do not recall seeing that when I setup my last Hyper-V Server 2016 instance 8 months ago.

I don't know but I swear to God that I saw in three different attempts of installing hyper-v 2016 that there was the second option of having a desktop experience installed.

I'm downloading it now. I have a crappy old desktop that may support it here that i can attempt the initial install on.

Also, this thread is what I did on a defualt AD domain.

https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016.

about halfway down I posted the firewall rules I enabled and such.

I'm downloading it now too. I do notice the file name is a bit different than the ISO I had downloaded before, about 3 months ago.

• Old file: 14393.0.161119-1705.RS1_REFRESH_SERVER_EVAL_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO
• New file: 14393.0.161119-1705.RS1_REFRESH_SERVERHYPERCORE_OEM_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO

Maybe, just maybe, I am a total fucking idiot and somehow mixed my ISOs up...

You are a total idiot based on THAT post.

The first is Server. The second is Hyper-V Server

pfffffhahahahahahahahah... WHAT THE FUCK.

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

So... if I just install Hyper-V Server 2016 WITH the Desktop Experience, I would be able to manage VM's by directly remoting into the server, right? Then I wouldn't have to mess with the Hyper-V Manager in Windows 10..

Well... that's not a product option. To do that you have to buy and install a full Windows Server license, and then that license is tied to Hyper-V. If you od that, then you can admin it locally. But if you are even thinking about that, it's time to be on KVM.

See this is why I am so confused.

1. I can go to Microsoft and download Windows Server 2016, which when you install it, has options to install as core or GUI. Either way, I have to pay for a license because it's not free, core or GUI, RIGHT?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server-2016
2. I can go to Microsoft and download the "evaluation" of Hyper-V Server 2016, which when I install, has the option to install standard evaluation, or desktop experience evaluation. I can just use the standard no GUI and it's 100% free, RIGHT?? So then what does it matter if I choose to install the free hypervisor with the desktop experience?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016

If both things are separate things, but installing the Desktop Experience means they are the same thing and I have to pay for a license to use Hyper-V, then I don't understand why they are selling them together... or wait is it because they want money??

Now I am not trying to make assumptions here or not thinking in a sensible GD way. I am just trying to navigate my way through options for installing Hyper-V, having it be free, and having it actually ****ing work.

Wait, when the fuck did they add a GUI to Hyper-V. I do not recall seeing that when I setup my last Hyper-V Server 2016 instance 8 months ago.

I don't know but I swear to God that I saw in three different attempts of installing hyper-v 2016 that there was the second option of having a desktop experience installed.

I'm downloading it now. I have a crappy old desktop that may support it here that i can attempt the initial install on.

Also, this thread is what I did on a defualt AD domain.

https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016.

about halfway down I posted the firewall rules I enabled and such.

I'm downloading it now too. I do notice the file name is a bit different than the ISO I had downloaded before, about 3 months ago.

• Old file: 14393.0.161119-1705.RS1_REFRESH_SERVER_EVAL_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO
• New file: 14393.0.161119-1705.RS1_REFRESH_SERVERHYPERCORE_OEM_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO

Maybe, just maybe, I am a total fucking idiot and somehow mixed my ISOs up...

@jaredbusch said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

So... if I just install Hyper-V Server 2016 WITH the Desktop Experience, I would be able to manage VM's by directly remoting into the server, right? Then I wouldn't have to mess with the Hyper-V Manager in Windows 10..

Well... that's not a product option. To do that you have to buy and install a full Windows Server license, and then that license is tied to Hyper-V. If you od that, then you can admin it locally. But if you are even thinking about that, it's time to be on KVM.

See this is why I am so confused.

1. I can go to Microsoft and download Windows Server 2016, which when you install it, has options to install as core or GUI. Either way, I have to pay for a license because it's not free, core or GUI, RIGHT?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server-2016
2. I can go to Microsoft and download the "evaluation" of Hyper-V Server 2016, which when I install, has the option to install standard evaluation, or desktop experience evaluation. I can just use the standard no GUI and it's 100% free, RIGHT?? So then what does it matter if I choose to install the free hypervisor with the desktop experience?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016

If both things are separate things, but installing the Desktop Experience means they are the same thing and I have to pay for a license to use Hyper-V, then I don't understand why they are selling them together... or wait is it because they want money??

Now I am not trying to make assumptions here or not thinking in a sensible GD way. I am just trying to navigate my way through options for installing Hyper-V, having it be free, and having it actually ****ing work.

Wait, when the fuck did they add a GUI to Hyper-V. I do not recall seeing that when I setup my last Hyper-V Server 2016 instance 8 months ago.

I don't know but I swear to God that I saw in three different attempts of installing hyper-v 2016 that there was the second option of having a desktop experience installed.

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

So... if I just install Hyper-V Server 2016 WITH the Desktop Experience, I would be able to manage VM's by directly remoting into the server, right? Then I wouldn't have to mess with the Hyper-V Manager in Windows 10..

Well... that's not a product option. To do that you have to buy and install a full Windows Server license, and then that license is tied to Hyper-V. If you od that, then you can admin it locally. But if you are even thinking about that, it's time to be on KVM.

See this is why I am so confused.

1. I can go to Microsoft and download Windows Server 2016, which when you install it, has options to install as core or GUI. Either way, I have to pay for a license because it's not free, core or GUI, RIGHT?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-server-2016
2. I can go to Microsoft and download the "evaluation" of Hyper-V Server 2016, which when I install, has the option to install standard evaluation, or desktop experience evaluation. I can just use the standard no GUI and it's 100% free, RIGHT?? So then what does it matter if I choose to install the free hypervisor with the desktop experience?? - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016

If both things are separate things, but installing the Desktop Experience means they are the same thing and I have to pay for a license to use Hyper-V, then I don't understand why they are selling them together... or wait is it because they want to rope you into having to pay them money??

Now I am not trying to make assumptions here or not thinking in a sensible GD way. I am just trying to navigate my way through options for installing Hyper-V, having it be free, and having it actually ****ing work.

So... if I just install Hyper-V Server 2016 WITH the Desktop Experience, I would be able to manage VM's by directly remoting into the server, right? Then I wouldn't have to mess with the Hyper-V Manager in Windows 10..

Would this somehow be different than a case where someone installs Windows Server 2016 and then adds the Hyper-V role?

And I know it would probably eat up some CPU power, but I really only want to run a few tiny VM's..

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

@dave247 said in Trying to set up Hyper-V Server 2016, ripping my hair out:

It's not like I just blindly downloaded XS and installed it without doing anything else. I've tried to get information. I've read the information on their website. I don't have endless amounts of time to dump into a full blown investigation to determine if their platform is actually dead or not.

I don't have any more hair to rip out.

Of course not, that's why no IT department should be less than ... well a lot of people. No one has the time to investigate this stuff. IT should always be a team. And IT should not investigate all options, there isn't time for that. Quickly determining projects that aren't currently viable (too early, too late, bad idea, bad vendor, etc.) is an important piece of that. Rule things out and move on. ESXi is easy to rule out of rthe average SMB due to cost and licensing overhead, as an example. Rule out, move on.

lmao. And we have vSphere 6.5 in my SMB environment...