Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (
More info?)
Thanks. The solution we've opted for is just to put a couple of entries in
everybody's HOSTS file. We can do this with a script that they run when
they set up the connection.
"Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
news:ul%23g$K7OEHA.640@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> It's basically a DNS problem, and you might like to post it in the
DNS
> newsgroup. You might also like to look at KB 292822 about the problems
with
> DNS on a DC running RRAS.
>
> "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote
> in message news:e#BgZn1OEHA.252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Further info inserted below...
> >
> > "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
> wrote
> > in message news:e$idlduOEHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> > > news:uFKR4stOEHA.3052@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > It's not a routing thing, it's name resolution. You need to look
> at
> > > DNS
> > > > and/or WINS and see why the name of the server is resolving to the
> > "wrong"
> > > > IP!
> > >
> > > It's resolving to the Internet connection rather than the LAN
> connection.
> > > Here's the whole picture (names changed of course):
> > >
> > > server1.dept.school.edu resolves to the Internet connection of
> server1,
> > > which I'll call 128.x.x.3.
> > >
> > > server1 (as a Windows networking name on a VPN client) also
> resolves
> > to
> > > 128.x.x.3
> > >
> > > 128.x.x.9 is the LAN connection (i.e., the second Ethernet card) of
> > server1.
> > >
> > > On a VPN client, "net view 128.x.x.9" works; "net view 128.x.x.3" and
> > "net
> > > view server1" do not.
> > >
> > > I would like "server1" (without .dept.school.edu) to resolve to
> 128.x.x.9,
> > > but "server1.dept.school.edu" to resolve to 128.x.x.3.
> >
> > I should add that everything else on the LAN resolves correctly, e.g.,
> > server2, server3...
> >
> > > Is this a reasonable request? Or do I need to do some major
rearranging
> > of
> > > names?
> > >
> > > Would it be sufficient if I had them change the campus DNS tables so
> that
> > >
> > > www.dept.school.edu is still 128.x.x.3, but
> > > ais1.dept.school.edu becomes 128.x.x.9 ?
> > >
> > > Would this make "ais1" (without suffixes) resolve to .9 in a Windows
> file
> > > sharing context?
> >
> > Or should I deploy an LMHOSTS on all the clients to tell them that
server1
> > is 128.x.x.9?
> >
> > ALSO, at this point I am motivated only by curiosity, since we have
enough
> > functionality for our users. And if the way of getting into one of the
> > machines is slightly quirky, so be it; it probably gives us a tad more
> > security. Thanks for those who have responded!
> >
> >
> > > > "Michael A. Covington"
<look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
> > > wrote
> > > > in message news:#U14qTiOEHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > More progress. The only limitation is that the VPN server can't
> > > recognize
> > > > > itself by its own name. Call it SERVER1. To see resources on
> SERVER1
> > I
> > > > > have to use
> > > > >
> > > > > net view 128.192.etc.etc
> > > > >
> > > > > using the IP number of the *second* Ethernet card (the one
> designated
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > LAN connection). If I address it by its first Ethernet card IP
> number,
> > > or
> > > > by
> > > > > its name (whether or not fully qualified), I get "network path not
> > > found."
> > > > >
> > > > > I can use names for all the othe rmachines on the network, e.g.:
> net
> > > view
> > > > > server2
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm content to leave it at this, but if there is a simple trick
with
> > the
> > > > > routing table that will cure this, so much the better.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael A. Covington"
> <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
> > > > wrote
> > > > > in message news:exP8k1gOEHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > PROGRESS... The VPN server now has 2 Ethernet cards in it. The
> > other
> > > > > > crucial step was apparently to have the VPN server give out IP
> > > addresses
> > > > > > that are in the same subrange as the other machines on the LAN.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Now* I have the opposite problem than before. The VPN clients
> can
> > > see
> > > > > > everything on the LAN *except* the shared resources on the
server
> > > > itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any ideas? Something to do with the routing table? I'm going
to
> > keep
> > > > > > trying the combinations and permutations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Michael A. Covington"
> > <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > > > in message news:O4Nw3AcOEHA.2952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Pawan Agarwal (MSFT)" <pawana@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > news:er$7ZFZOEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > Can you let us know the topology? If the VPN server is not
> > behind
> > > a
> > > > > NAT,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > requires 2 NICs. Otherwise, just a single NIC will do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *ahhhh!* That may be it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is not behind a NAT. There are firewalls and switches at
> > > different
> > > > > > > levels to keep out the riffraff, but every machine on this
> network
> > > is
> > > > > > known
> > > > > > > by its actual Internet address (128.192.something.something).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is only one Ethernet card in the machine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am I right in suspecting I need two Ethernet cards, installed
in
> > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > machine, even though both are connected to the same network?
> And
> > > then
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > tell RRAS that one of them is the Internet and the other is
the
> > LAN.
> > > > > > Right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Will I need to add static routing information or will they
> already
> > > > know
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > they're doing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Michael A. Covington"
> > > > <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
> > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > in message news:%23Kt4kkUOEHA.1644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > Let me add another newsgroup and restate the whole problem
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > top.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We are on a departmental LAN in a university, which is
part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > Internet.
> > > > > > > > > No NAT.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We had one Windows 2000 (later 2003) server, on which we
> > enabled
> > > > VPN
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > order to allow users to get to their files from elsewhere
on
> > the
> > > > > > > Internet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > At the time, we didn't check (or care) that the VPN didn't
> > > enable
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > see the rest of the LAN.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We have now added a second server and moved onto it some
of
> > the
> > > > > files
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > people need to access.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When users connect to the VPN, they can get to Server 1
but
> > not
> > > > > Server
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > anything else on the LAN.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Examples:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > net view server1
> > > > > > > > > --- list of shared resources on server1 ---
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > net view server2
> > > > > > > > > network connection not found (or words to that effect)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do I need to change?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I should add that server1 has only one network card in it.
> Am
> > I
> > > > > going
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have to add a second network card even though they're both
> > going
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > connected to exactly the same network? Do I just need to
> add
> > > some
> > > > > > > routing
> > > > > > > > > or something?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Apart from the VPN problem, server1 and server2 have no
> > trouble
> > > > > > > > > communicating with each other; they share a lot of things
> > > > > constantly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any help would be welcome!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram