Re: Multi NIC Windows 2003 routing problem

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: J.H (jpthsd_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:01:38 -0800

Hi there,

Removed the gateway on 2ND nick since the 1st NIC is your VPN server
interface (treating as
VPN server's internet interface).
You might have to check your routing configuration on the 2nd NIC network
then to make sure
when VPN client connected and assigned IP on the same network of 2ND NIC,
they can route to
other without any problem!

Take care,
J.H

"Chuck" <balt3@inside.net.remove.from.here.no> wrote in message
news:4186c2bd$0$325$4d4ef98e@read.news.ch.uu.net...
> Phillip,
>
> thanks for the information. Do you think it could still be done (if yes,
> how?) with these details:
>
> All network traffic destined for the 192.168.20.x and 192.168.90.x should
go
> out via NIC1 (the one with the 192.168.90.1 address), ALL other traffic
can
> safely go out the 10.10.10.2 interface.
>
> How could that be set routing wise (maybe with route add ... )
>
> I stated that before, it worked beautifully on Windows NT 4 for many many
> years.... (still does, but that server has to go, for obvious reasons).
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
> news:OYj2eWGwEHA.2016@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > You cannot have two Default Gateways. By the very definition of the
> > term,..there can only be one.
> >
> > 157025 - Default Gateway Configuration for Multihomed Computers
> >
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;157025&Product=win2000
> >
> > Since you appear to have three subnets floating around and I have no
idea
> > about the relationship between them,...I cannot tell you how to deal
with
> > the problem the right way.
> >
> > The best way is to never multi-home a Server under any circumstances
> > except
> > for Proxys and NAT Servers. Place real LAN routers between the subnets,
> > not
> > computers.
> >
> > Here are other multi-homing "horrors" to keep in mind. This is why
> > computers
> > should only "live" on networks and let the Routers "route" the networks.
> >
> > 175767 - Expected Behavior of Multiple Adapters on Same Network
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;175767
> >
> > 272294 - Active Directory Communication Fails on Multihomed Domain
> > Controllers
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;272294
> >
> > 191611 - Symptoms of Multihomed Browsers
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;191611
> >
> > Microsoft Windows XP - Multihoming Considerations
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/reskit/en-us/prcc_tcp_qpzj.asp?
> >
> > 128978 - Dead Gateway Detection in TCP/IP for Windows NT
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;128978
> >
> > 171564 - TCP/IP Dead Gateway Detection Algorithm Updated for Windows NT
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;171564
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > www.wandtv.com
> >
> >
> > "Chuck" <balt3@inside.net.remove.from.here.no> wrote in message
> > news:4186a368$0$327$4d4ef98e@read.news.ch.uu.net...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have a Windows 2003 Enterprise Server which talks to machines in one
> >> private network, hosted on one network card, and another private
network
> > as
> >> well as the internet which should be routed over the other network
card.
> >> This exact layout on a Windows NT 4 Server works just fine, but not on
> >> the
> >> Windows 2003 Server which I'm setting up to replace the NT4 Server. The
> >> setup:
> >>
> >> NIC1:
> >> IP: 192.168.90.1
> >> Def GW: 192.168.90.67
> >> Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
> >>
> >> NIC2:
> >> IP: 10.10.10.2
> >> Def GW: 10.10.10.1
> >> Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
> >>
> >> NIC1 is connected to a Cisco PIX leading to a VPN. The PIX is the
default
> >> gateway, the network behind the PIX is 192.168.20.x
> >> NIC2 is connected to a Sonicwall, which is connected to the internet.
The
> >> Sonicwall is the default gateway.
> >>
> >> When I set the TCP/IP properties on the server, I always get a warning
> >> message saying that having different default gateways would not work as
> >> expected. The server then communicates just fine on the 192.168.90.x
> >> network, and it can also ping machines on the 10.10.10.x network. But
any
> >> requests that would go out to the internet are failing, can't even an
> >> outside server with a public IP (which works on the NT4 system).
> >>
> >> Does anyone see how this can be solved? With the NT4 system I had to
add
> >> this route to get it to work:
> >> route add 192.168.20.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.90.67 -p
> >>
> >> but that doesn't seem to make a difference on the Windows 2003 Server.
> >>
> >> Any hints greatly appreciated. Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unexpected traceroute output over VPN
    ... I am aware that the packet will go from the local machine, ... gateway, to the remote gateway and then to the destination IP. ... encapsulated/encrypted once it enters the inside interface of the local ... ie not while traversing the VPN. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: OpenVPN working between client and server only, but not able to access any machines in server su
    ... You never mentioned what the IP is for the default gateway of location ... ping from location 2 machine (I can see vpn server and client can ... interface rathertahn eth interface, do I have to specify interface ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: OpenVPN working between client and server only, but not able to access any machines in server su
    ... I tried to run this that command (route add -net 172.16.2.0 netmask ... You never mentioned what the IP is for the default gateway of location 1, so I could hardly include it in my post. ... But ordinarily speaking, openvpn should take care of that as long as you make sure traffic for the remote network gets routed to the VPN server machine, and the VPN box itself has IP routing enabled. ... interface rathertahn eth interface, do I have to specify interface ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: found a workaround = more confusion
    ... > on a single NIC but I need to do this because its a VPN server and I dont ... > want the VPN clients on the same subnet as my LAN servers. ... unusual setup on a network I have never seen, can't see, and can't touch. ... ISA should have a static route to 10.2.3.x Network using Gateway 10.2.1.3 ...
    (microsoft.public.isa)
  • Re: How to allow an ipsec tunnel endpoint to communicate with an internal IP on the other side?
    ... Joachim Schipper wrote: ... >>(because that interface is on the way to the default gateway). ... > the VPN, on the public interface. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)