I must be missing something

Post #195,095 by FuManChu 2/17/05 12:53:53 AM Reply	I must be missing something What piece of hardware at the main site actually has a public address pointing to the remote site? Does the gateway at 192.168.200.97 map traffic for 192.168.201.x to the remote, publically routable IP? Some box on each network has to run (in promiscuous mode) and grab traffic destined for the other site.
Post #195,101 by Andrew Grygus 2/17/05 1:26:55 AM Reply	Yes The main site has a fixed IP on the WAN side of the router which allows the remote site to find it. This site authenticates to the remote site "IP address only". The remote site has PPPoE so it's actual IP address is unknown to the main site. When it contacts the main site it hands it the current IP address and an email address. If the email address matches what the main site expects the connection is accepted. This is separate from the encryption keys which are then negotiated. The sites recognize each other on the WAN side and both register "connected" which means authentication has succeeded. I don't know for sure yet if the encryption negotiation is working. The method selected is based on "previously known key". What I listed were the LAN subnets at each end, and each knows the subnet address of the other so presumably routing can occurr through the tunnel even though these are "private" IP addresses, [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #195,279 by Andrew Grygus 2/17/05 8:46:39 PM Reply	Well, turns out it was actually working. I sat down at the remote office and typed the local address of the VPN router, but mistyped and actually typed the local address for the main VPN router - and it's log-in screen popped right up. I can ping net addresses over there just fine and get an ACCES DENIED if I try to get a Net View on one of those IP addresses (need to go over there and set up login accounts for the remote office). Now to see if I can get stuff to show up in My Network Places, or If I have to work around not having that. I tried again having both ends on the same 192.168.200 network with different IP ranges. Not only didn't it work, I lost general Internet access until I put it back to two separate networks, 200 and 201. which does route just fine. These routers seem to be pretty picky about configuration. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #195,289 by folkert 2/17/05 10:18:07 PM Reply	Remote announce seems to work for that... or Wins -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Miltary Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]
Post #195,318 by Andrew Grygus 2/18/05 12:19:23 AM Reply	Well, maybe not . . . As far as I can see, Windows 2000 Pro (their main server) doesn't support being a WINS server and nor does XP Pro. Remote announce appears to be Samba only (at least I didn't find a single reference on the Internet that did not have the word Samba prominently displayed). Looks like I'll have to get along with an LMHosts file. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #195,443 by Andrew Grygus 2/18/05 8:26:34 PM Reply	They can't browse across the VPN . . . . but they have no need to . Their medical management software can see the databases on the main office server and that's all that's needed from the VPN. I are now a VPN Ex-spurt. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #195,539 by folkert 2/19/05 2:03:16 PM Reply	HA! ICLURPD (new thread) Created as new thread #195538 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=195538\|HA! ICLURPD] -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Miltary Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]

Welcome to IWETHEY!