Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?
From: Jim Behning (jimbehningmvp_at_atl.mindspring.com)
Date: 04/19/04
- Next message: Jim Behning: "Re: Re-installing Trend Micro"
- Previous message: James: "Microsoft Shared Fax"
- In reply to: Richard Prossor: "Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?"
- Next in thread: Richard Prossor: "Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?"
- Reply: Richard Prossor: "Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:26:50 GMT
Someone picked up a "bad" ip scheme for the Unix.
"I am assuming that since my SBS server is
prossornt01.prossorsnt.prossors.com, the domain name is
prossorsnt.prossors.com and its parent is prossors.com." To me it
appears that your domain is prossornt.prossors.com. On my installs
there is no parent to that name. If I choose fred.local then that is
the start of the domain. It appears that you started your domain with
prossorsnt.prossors.com.
You DNS does not look like my dns. I am no whiz at dns but how can you
have 3 A records pointing to the (same as parent folder)? I would
think that only one which should point to 192.0.0.7 is correct.
I assign static ips to my servers. All servers. If I need to get to
them I enter the ip after I vpn in. No reason not to do the same if
you have workstations. SBS 2000 only allows for 50 workstations so I
cannot see that you would not have that many stations to apply static
ips to. Or you should be able to see them by \\workstation name. If
you cannot then you have WINS and DNS issues. Your dns looks wierd now
so it may be causing you grief.
I have never seen in the manuals for SBS that using a static pool that
is on another ip scheme is the recommended setup. You can look at all
the servers I have set up and they are all using DHCP for RRAS. I may
not have it set up correctly but all I did was follow the wizards the
SBS team created for me.
Note that if Jeff recommends not doing something it is with good
reason.
If it really bugs you why don't you call MIcrosoft? It appears that
what you want is not easy to fix. They deal with this kind of stuff
all day and should be able to help. Surely there is some sort of time
value you can assign to the hours you have spent on this. Sometimes
patches released goof something up or possibley you made some change
that you did not see until you rebooted which restarted all services.
"Richard Prossor" <richard.prossor@prossor.com> wrote:
>Hi Jim
>
>The 192.0.0.x network was the numbering system used on our old UNIX system
>15 years ago - it has just been carried forward ever since.
>
>As to why spend the time when the important things are working - call it
>personal interest and the fact that NOT everything of importance is on my
>SBS server.
>
>If you look back in the newsgroup, I followed all the recommendations
>including the static pool. In my case, VPN clients need to connect to an
>application server within the SBS domain (not the SBS server). All in the
>garden was rosy and I had no issues :-)
>
>Then suddenly (most poular word in insurance claims!) at the end of November
>2003 it stopped working. Remote clients could not see beyond the SBS server
>and so could not connect to the application server.
>
>After a few days flailing about, help from this newsgroup (thanks Chad)
>advised me to try moving away from the static group towards assigning
>addresses by DHCP. Connectivity was restored and the panic was over - but it
>was not the same connectivity as before and I was still left with the
>questions:
>
>1) why had it gone wrong in the first place
>2) why doesn't the recommended setup work in my situation
>
>Like many SBS'ers, we do not have dedicated IT staff and I prefer to be able
>to forget about the system and get on with the day job of running the
>business. To me this basically means use all the default settings and
>recommendations, and keep away from bespoke fixes because they are likely to
>bite you sometime in the future when you have completely forgotten the fix
>that was required or even what it was for.
>
>So, I kept looking to try to get back to the recommended set up (static
>pool) and full connectivity.
>
>I found that if I changed the fixed IP address of the application server and
>replaced it with a reservation in DHCP, this enabled me to return to using
>a static pool. Note - exclusions do not work.
>
>At this stage I am basically back on the recommended set up except for the
>fact that I can't browse - so long as I know what I want to connect to, I
>can. As you point out, there is now little to gain from spending time on the
>problem...... and in addition you confirm what many others have said: that
>while you have the same issue, the preferred solution is just not to worry
>about it.
>
>I had just about reached this frame of mind when I came across KB830063 (not
>surprising since it was only published at the end of Feb 04). This actually
>refers to the symptom directly and fingers SP3 as the culprit. However it
>contradicts the "gospel" according to KB292822 - it deletes the
>DisableNetBiosoverTCPIP registry setting, wants you to enable NetBios over
>TCP/IP on the External NIC, and advises you MUST use a static pool.
>
>When I posted this on this newsgroup, the reaction was that Microsoft had
>got it wrong (from no less a source than Jeff Middleton) and that there must
>be something else wrong with my setup.
>
>What I am trying to do (with Marina's much appreciated help) is try to
>ascertain if it is indeed my setup that is wrong or if, in fact, it is
>KB292822 which is wrong and needs to be updated with KB830063.
>
>Currently, despite Jeff and Marina's protestations, my money is on KB830063
>and unless I see any reason otherwise, I will be applying the fix
>recommended there and hopefully forgetting about my SBS server until the
>next time something "suddenly" happens.
>
>Here's the link
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;830063&Product=sbs
>
>See what you think
>
>
>Regards
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Jim Behning" <jimbehningmvp@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:haq580d8tsgmsg280danq7snbrhkl9a1rr@4ax.com...
>> I thought I had read one time that there are magic clicks when your
>> RRAS is using a different ip scheme from your internal network. Why
>> don't you use dhcp to assign your RRAS instead of a static pool. Or if
>> you are doing a static pool then use your network with some exclusions
>> in the dhcp manager.
>>
>> Where did the 192.0.0.x network come from? A bit out of the range of
>> Microsoft defaults and a big departure from the Excerpt from RFC 1918
>> Private Address Space
>>
>> " The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
>> following three blocks of the IP address space for private
>> internets:
>>
>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
>> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)"
>>
>> So what works and what does not work? \\servername works? Seems like a
>> lot of time spent trying to get something working that I have never
>> gotton to work and never considered important. I repeat, everything
>> important is on the server so what else does one need to get to?
>>
>>
>> "Richard" <richard.prossor@prossor.com wrote:
>>
snip for bandwidth reasons
Jim B. SBS MVP
remove the mvp to send email
- Next message: Jim Behning: "Re: Re-installing Trend Micro"
- Previous message: James: "Microsoft Shared Fax"
- In reply to: Richard Prossor: "Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?"
- Next in thread: Richard Prossor: "Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?"
- Reply: Richard Prossor: "Re: what happened to my post re KB830063 - Browsing over VPN?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
