Yes, the .201 host needs to know how to reply. The packet is coming from a Subnet that it does not know about, so it will send the reply off to its (.201's) default gateway. If that gateway doesn't know how to get the packet to 10.10.10.1 then things fall apart.
Simplest solution is to use DHCP for the RRAS dial-in users as well. If there are only a couple servers the users need access to, then you could add static routes to those servers (but I can almost guarantee this will get forgotten and cause headaches in the future). >From a routing standpoint it's a little dirty, but you could add the static >route on your default gateway, pointing to the RRAS server for the 10.10.10 >subnet. You're close on this one. Let us know when you get it sorted. -Tom Geairn NewView Consulting, LLC -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dubaisans dubai Sent: 01/04/2007 10:03 AM To: James D. Stallard Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Secure Remote access - windows 2003 Looks like a routing problem to me too. But I feel DHCP or static is NOT the issue. My static address pool is 10.10.10.1 -10.10.10.10. On connection , Internet user is getting address 10.10.10.1 . When he tries to ping 192.168.0.201, an internal machine - what will be the source IP of that packet as seen by 192.168.0.201. If source IP is 10.10.10.1 then maybe I need to add a route for this 10.10.10.10 static pool on the internal host .201. Any other suggestions? On 1/4/07, James D. Stallard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not a routing expert, but I suspect you have configured your RRAS Server > to assign addresses from a pool of addresses, rather than use DHCP. > > Under the Properties dialog for your server and in the IP tab you need to > check the box labelled Enable IP Routing and also the radio botton Dynamic > Host Configuration Protocol. You want to be using the existing internal DHCP > server to allocate addresses to your inbound VPN clients. > > The good news is that if you decide to start from scratch it is a simple > matter to disable and re-enable RRAS and re-do your configuration with the > default settings. > > Not sure why you enabled IP forwarding in the registry, the (very) basic > solution described does not require you to do so. > Cheers > > James D. Stallard > > -----Original Message----- > From: dubaisans dubai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 January 2007 14:48 > To: James D. Stallard > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Secure Remote access - windows 2003 > > Using the instructions I have successfully setup the L2TP/IPSEC tunnel up > till the gateway. Now if I want to access the internal network what else > should I do on the RRAS server. From Internet user machine I am able to ping > both the Internet interface and the internal interface [ 192.168.0.200] of > the RRAS server. But I cannot ping any other internal machine > [192.168.0.201].connected on the same LAN as internal network interface. > > On the RRAS server I have enabled IP forwarding in the through Registry. > Address pool is configured and is getting allocated to Internet user when he > connects. > > On 1/3/07, James D. Stallard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You don't mention the number of users, but the budget suggests small > > scale > > :) > > > > Windows 2003, SP1 and R2 provide RRAS, which will do L2TP/IPSEC, and > > with WXP SP2 as your client you have 2048bit Diffie-Hellman encryption > available. > > > > Setting up RRAS to perform this task is done in less than 20 minutes > > and is easy to get through a firewall inbound (IE your firewall). The > > problems you have to face are: > > > > . If you wish to use pre-shared keys (the "cheapest" way of doing it) > > you will need to configure the PSK passphrase on each client > > individually - easy with a small number of clients. Otherwise, you > > will need to invest in a certificate authority. > > > > . This is only suitable for access by known machines, not for internet > > café type environments. > > > > . This solution works great for the remote home user, but is less > > successful for your travelling salesmen using the client's internet > > connection as they generally have the relevant ports/protocols blocked. > > > > . The locally configured PSK may not be stored in a highly secure > > manner on the client machines and could possibly become known in the > > event a machine configured with it is stolen. You may find yourself > > having to re-deploy a new PSK. > > > > I wrote a quick and dirty step-by-step here: > > http://www.leafgrove.com/view_article.asp?id=19&cat=16&state=plus > > > > In case one of your configured laptops is stolen and an attempt is > > made on your RRAS solution, pay attention to your account locking on > > failed password settings. You want permanent locks on a small number > > of attempts (say 5), thus forcing administrative intervention and > > investigation in the event of an account becoming locked. > > > > Cheers > > > > James D. Stallard > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dubaisans dubai > > Sent: 02 January 2007 04:17 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Secure Remote access - windows 2003 > > > > I am planning to provide remote access from Internet to a windows 2003 > > domain > > > > controller.User-ids, NTFS permissions are all configured. > > > > The objective is file sharing and access. > > > > Files will need to be copied. The machine has valid Internet IP > > address and is > > > > sitting behind a Firewall. > > > > I would like to keep solution independent of Firewall.This will be > > accessed by roaming users. I am thinking of something like 0penssh for > > windows or maybe just GUI based Secure-FTP > > > > Challenges I am facing > > ------------------------------------ > > Authentication should be strong. Something more than a password. [ No > > budget for RSA securiD :-))) ] > > > > Encryption for user-crentials/data access > > > > Options considered > > ---------------------------------- > > I read W2K3 L2TP/IPSEC - looks complex. Terminal services - File copy > > is not simple and also you require Application Mode license. > > > > The number of remote users - less than 100 > > > > Cost effective , easy to implement and easy to manage solution sought > > > > > > > > > > > >
