Re: Connecting via remote
From: Phillip Windell (_at_.)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Miha Pihler: "Re: 2 DHCP Servers and 2 Domains"
- Previous message: James McIllece [MS]: "Re: 2 DHCP Servers and 2 Domains"
- In reply to: Glenn: "Re: Connecting via remote"
- Next in thread: Glenn: "Re: Connecting via remote"
- Reply: Glenn: "Re: Connecting via remote"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:09:51 -0500
Then the 56k Frame relay would be a bridged connection. We used to have two
here but are down to one. We use a "Nailed" 56k line to connect our "Press
Office" in the State Capitol Building. Since it is the same subnet on both
ends there isn'at any routing involved, so in your case this is not a
routing issue nor VPN as I mentioned earlier. Unfortuneately, I don't know
what the root of your problem would be,...all I can say is that routing is
not involved since there is no routing in the first place and VPN would not
be used in this type of situation.
-- Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA] www.wandtv.com "Glenn" <glenn@rlbrews.com> wrote in message news:OiUI4ammEHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > Sorry Phillip but everything runs under one subnet. That's the irony. > Anyway, I appreciate your time very much. Thank you. > > Glenn > > "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message > news:OFzBZRmmEHA.1712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > "Glenn" <glenn@rlbrews.com> wrote in message > > news:OKmB9pdmEHA.3464@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > > You are absolutely correct in saying that our setup is confusing and > > > probably one of a kind having been started a decade ago with the wrong > > > ip scheme by the wrong people and as it grew, was never rectified and so > > > is causing us grief. > > > ....................... > > > The setup is that branch users are part of the lan that is connected to > > the > > > office lan by the frame relay which is a dedicated connection. I guess > > > you're correct when you say it is a private link. > > > > Ok, well, it makes more sense now. But you better correct the ipromper > > addressing scheme someday because you will run into routing issues with it > > where is "clashes" with the Internet. > > > > Anyway, forget VPN altogether. There is no reason for VPN to exist in this > > picture at all. Treat the Frame Relay as if it is just another CAT5 cable > > running between two segments of the private LAN,..and the geographical > > distance means *nothing*,...the fact that it is Frame Relay also means > > *nothing*. It is no different "logically" than a simply LAN link between > to > > segments of a LAN in the same building. > > > > If you view it as I describe then you will see that, at most, you only > have > > a simple routing issue assuming that the two sites run different subnets > > (they do run different subnets, right?). > > > > Without knowing the exact routing design, number of routers, where they > are > > located, how they are implemented, the exact IP scheme, the exact nature > of > > the Internet connection at each and how it is implemented. I doubt I could > > be any more specific than that. I don't expect you to try to explain all > > that and I doubt I would be able to follow the description anyway. > > > > > > -- > > > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA] > > www.wandtv.com > > > > > > > >
- Next message: Miha Pihler: "Re: 2 DHCP Servers and 2 Domains"
- Previous message: James McIllece [MS]: "Re: 2 DHCP Servers and 2 Domains"
- In reply to: Glenn: "Re: Connecting via remote"
- Next in thread: Glenn: "Re: Connecting via remote"
- Reply: Glenn: "Re: Connecting via remote"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|