weird GP issue

[Guest]

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

Hi all,

We have a remote network connected via hardware VPN. The users at the remote
site have all XP Pro SP1 boxes and can logon, access all mapped drives,
connect Outlook to the Exchange server, print to printers at HQ and anything
else they need to do.

Several days ago we changed the default policy on the domain and noticed,
that the changes were not implemented at the remote site. We started
troubleshooting. We ran a gpupdate on one of the clients it said that both
(computer and user) policies had been updated. Looking at the AppLog showed
a 1054 error saying that a name for a domain controller could not be
obtained.

Also, running gpresult shows that the slow link threshold is set to 500kbs
and that the computer has a slow link. A slow link threshold has never been
configured and the remote network is connected via a full T1. We changed the
policy threshold to 50kbs and tried another gpupdate. We got the same result
and running the gpresult still showed the 500kbs.

We can ping the domain and we can browse to the SysVol/policy folder. Domain
users that have never loged on to those clients can log on and get
authenticated - only the GP is not applied.

Does anybody have any idea what else we could test to find out what is going
on?

Thanks,
Claus

 

[Guest]

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

Shot in the dark... Try forcing the gpupdate with "gpupdate
/force"... I sometimes need to do this on LAN connected computers
even though just "gpupdate" says that both the computer and user
policies were updated when in fact they weren't...

I would also recommend looking up that particuliar 1054 error to see
if it can shed more light on this problem.
---
Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com

Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
be answered depending on time availability....

Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
Windows Network Technology Community -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/networking/default.mspx
Windows Home Networking Community -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/communities/wireless.mspx

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:39:46 -0400, "cjobes" <cjobes@nova-tech.org>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>We have a remote network connected via hardware VPN. The users at the remote
>site have all XP Pro SP1 boxes and can logon, access all mapped drives,
>connect Outlook to the Exchange server, print to printers at HQ and anything
>else they need to do.
>
>Several days ago we changed the default policy on the domain and noticed,
>that the changes were not implemented at the remote site. We started
>troubleshooting. We ran a gpupdate on one of the clients it said that both
>(computer and user) policies had been updated. Looking at the AppLog showed
>a 1054 error saying that a name for a domain controller could not be
>obtained.
>
>Also, running gpresult shows that the slow link threshold is set to 500kbs
>and that the computer has a slow link. A slow link threshold has never been
>configured and the remote network is connected via a full T1. We changed the
>policy threshold to 50kbs and tried another gpupdate. We got the same result
>and running the gpresult still showed the 500kbs.
>
>We can ping the domain and we can browse to the SysVol/policy folder. Domain
>users that have never loged on to those clients can log on and get
>authenticated - only the GP is not applied.
>
>Does anybody have any idea what else we could test to find out what is going
>on?
>
>Thanks,
>Claus
>

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff,

Thanks for the answer. I did try gpupdate /force with the same result. I
have looked at any 1054 error suggestion that I could get me eyes on. I'm
really stumped here.

Any other ideas?

Claus


"Jeffrey Randow (MVP)" <jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com> wrote
in message news:qsbum0tq78lirki546f3hrbgli8jco8pkj@4ax.com...
> Shot in the dark... Try forcing the gpupdate with "gpupdate
> /force"... I sometimes need to do this on LAN connected computers
> even though just "gpupdate" says that both the computer and user
> policies were updated when in fact they weren't...
>
> I would also recommend looking up that particuliar 1054 error to see
> if it can shed more light on this problem.
> ---
> Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking MVP)
> jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
>
> Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
> of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
> be answered depending on time availability....
>
> Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
> http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
> Windows Network Technology Community -
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/networking/default.mspx
> Windows Home Networking Community -
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/communities/wireless.mspx
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:39:46 -0400, "cjobes" <cjobes@nova-tech.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >We have a remote network connected via hardware VPN. The users at the
remote
> >site have all XP Pro SP1 boxes and can logon, access all mapped drives,
> >connect Outlook to the Exchange server, print to printers at HQ and
anything
> >else they need to do.
> >
> >Several days ago we changed the default policy on the domain and noticed,
> >that the changes were not implemented at the remote site. We started
> >troubleshooting. We ran a gpupdate on one of the clients it said that
both
> >(computer and user) policies had been updated. Looking at the AppLog
showed
> >a 1054 error saying that a name for a domain controller could not be
> >obtained.
> >
> >Also, running gpresult shows that the slow link threshold is set to
500kbs
> >and that the computer has a slow link. A slow link threshold has never
been
> >configured and the remote network is connected via a full T1. We changed
the
> >policy threshold to 50kbs and tried another gpupdate. We got the same
result
> >and running the gpresult still showed the 500kbs.
> >
> >We can ping the domain and we can browse to the SysVol/policy folder.
Domain
> >users that have never loged on to those clients can log on and get
> >authenticated - only the GP is not applied.
> >
> >Does anybody have any idea what else we could test to find out what is
going
> >on?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Claus
> >
>

 

[Guest]

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

There are some possible solutions to the 1054 error at
http://www.eventid.net/display.asp?eventid=1054&eventno=1393&source=Userenv&phase=1

In summary, try restarting the Netlogon Service or double-check that
you don't have IPSEC enabled on the NIC...
---
Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com

Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
be answered depending on time availability....

Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
Windows Network Technology Community -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/networking/default.mspx
Windows Home Networking Community -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/communities/wireless.mspx

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:27:17 -0400, "cjobes" <cjobes@nova-tech.org>
wrote:

>Jeff,
>
>Thanks for the answer. I did try gpupdate /force with the same result. I
>have looked at any 1054 error suggestion that I could get me eyes on. I'm
>really stumped here.
>
>Any other ideas?
>
>Claus
>
>
>"Jeffrey Randow (MVP)" <jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com> wrote
>in message news:qsbum0tq78lirki546f3hrbgli8jco8pkj@4ax.com...
>> Shot in the dark... Try forcing the gpupdate with "gpupdate
>> /force"... I sometimes need to do this on LAN connected computers
>> even though just "gpupdate" says that both the computer and user
>> policies were updated when in fact they weren't...
>>
>> I would also recommend looking up that particuliar 1054 error to see
>> if it can shed more light on this problem.
>> ---
>> Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking MVP)
>> jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
>>
>> Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
>> of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
>> be answered depending on time availability....
>>
>> Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
>> http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
>> Windows Network Technology Community -
>>
>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/networking/default.mspx
>> Windows Home Networking Community -
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/communities/wireless.mspx
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:39:46 -0400, "cjobes" <cjobes@nova-tech.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >We have a remote network connected via hardware VPN. The users at the
>remote
>> >site have all XP Pro SP1 boxes and can logon, access all mapped drives,
>> >connect Outlook to the Exchange server, print to printers at HQ and
>anything
>> >else they need to do.
>> >
>> >Several days ago we changed the default policy on the domain and noticed,
>> >that the changes were not implemented at the remote site. We started
>> >troubleshooting. We ran a gpupdate on one of the clients it said that
>both
>> >(computer and user) policies had been updated. Looking at the AppLog
>showed
>> >a 1054 error saying that a name for a domain controller could not be
>> >obtained.
>> >
>> >Also, running gpresult shows that the slow link threshold is set to
>500kbs
>> >and that the computer has a slow link. A slow link threshold has never
>been
>> >configured and the remote network is connected via a full T1. We changed
>the
>> >policy threshold to 50kbs and tried another gpupdate. We got the same
>result
>> >and running the gpresult still showed the 500kbs.
>> >
>> >We can ping the domain and we can browse to the SysVol/policy folder.
>Domain
>> >users that have never loged on to those clients can log on and get
>> >authenticated - only the GP is not applied.
>> >
>> >Does anybody have any idea what else we could test to find out what is
>going
>> >on?
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Claus
>> >
>>
>