Strange VPN problem (was: Two servers, one VPN)

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

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!
9 answers Last reply
More about strange problem servers
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    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.

    Pawan [MSFT]
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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!
    >
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    "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!
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    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!
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    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!
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    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!

    "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!
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    "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.

    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?


    >
    > "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!
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    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!
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely,microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing (More info?)

    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!
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  9. 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!
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

vpn Microsoft Servers Windows XP