Where does Waldo Windows answer

Windows Server 2008R2 - 2 network cards - routing

Windows Serverhttps: //social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/f314a8cc-c3b5-453f-b06d-d7b950f70b43/windows-server-2008r2-2-netzwerkkarten-routingDiscussion97/11/2011 9:09:12 AM7 / 12/2011 3:36:35 PM Here you can ask questions about Windows Server technologies and discuss current topics with other users
  • General discussion

  • text / html7 / 11/2011 9:09:12 AM Petersen. _0

    Hello,

    can someone tell me where my error is with the following configuration.

    I have a Windows 2008 R2 server with two network cards.

    first card:

    10.0.0.1/24

    GW: 10.0.0.254

     

    second card:

    192.168.0.1/24

     

    Routing and remote access is installed and LAN routing is activated.

    I can reach 10.0.0.1 from a host in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, but no other host on the network.

    Do I still have to set a static route (server or host) to reach other hosts in the 192.168.0.0/24 network or what is still missing? Had already tried a few configurations, unfortunately without success.

    I guess I have a mistake here.

     

    Thank you very much,

    Greetings Petersen

All replies

  • text / html7 / 11/2011 9:25:04 AM Matthias Wolf0

    Hello,

    So according to the design, both cards should NOT have a gateway.

    That would be the first step.

    > GW: 10.0.0.254

    Is this router also connected to the 192.168.0.0 network?


  • text / html7 / 11/2011 4:28:27 PM Thorsten Kampe0

    * Matthias Wolf (Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:25:04 +0000)

    So according to the design, both cards should NOT have a gateway.

    According to the "design", a maximum of one card should have a gateway.

    That would be the first step.

    That has nothing to do with the problem.

    GW: 10.0.0.254

    Is this router also connected to the 192.168.0.0 network?

    What for? He already has a router between 10.0.0.1/24 and 192.168.0.1/24: the server.

    Thorsten

  • text / html7 / 11/2011 4:39:01 PM Thorsten Kampe0

    * Petersen. _ (Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:09:12 +0000)

    can someone tell me where my error with the following configuration
    lies.

    I have a Windows 2008 R2 server with two network cards.

    first card:

    10.0.0.1/24

    GW: 10.0.0.254

    second card:

    192.168.0.1/24

    Routing and remote access is installed and LAN routing is activated.

    From a host in the 192.168.0.0/24 network I can reach 10.0.0.1,
    but no other host on the network.

    Yes, you can. Just not the other way around.

    Do I still have to set a static route (server or host) to others
    To reach hosts in the 192.168.0.0/24 network or what am I still missing?

    You obviously already have a route for 192.168.0.0/24 -> 10.0.0.1/24 (otherwise you couldn't reach 10.0.0.1). Looks like they forgot the way back.

    Thorsten

  • text / html7 / 11/2011 10:17:47 PM Wolverine740

    Hi,

    post an ipconfig / all and a route print.

    Then write down which address you can reach and which you cannot. Is the computer addressed via the IP or the name?


    Many greetings, Carsten
  • text / html7 / 12/2011 6:52:28 AM Matthias Wolf0

    > What for? He already has a router between 10.0.0.1/24 and 192.168.0.1/24: the server

    The question was whether he even needed it,
    if he already has a router anyway.

    To do this, however, you would have to know which network device is 10.0.0.254
    and with which networks it is connected.

    > So according to the design, both cards should NOT have a gateway.

    At least that was my level of knowledge that I had from Andreas Altermann:

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/de-DE/windows_Serverde/thread/3726d8d7-3506-4b9c-a498-6cf685d2a9f7/

    Are there any official statements in Technet here?




  • text / html7 / 12/2011 10:58:54 AM Thorsten Kampe0

    * Matthias Wolf (Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:52:28 +0000)

    What for? He already has a router between 10.0.0.1/24 and
    192.168.0.1/24: the server '

    The question was whether he needed it at all, if he did
    already has a router anyway.

    Well, if you ask that, most likely not. Letting the router route is always the better solution.

    So according to the design, both cards should NOT be a gateway
    to have.

    At least that was my level of knowledge that I had from Andreas Altermann
    would have:

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/de-DE/windows_Serverde/thread/3726d8d7-3506-4b9c-a498-6cf685d2a9f7/

    That's unbelievable: Eddy_2010 deletes the default gateway and can therefore no longer access the Internet ("If I remove the standard gateway on the server, no client and the server itself will no longer be able to access the Internet - is to be expected.")

    Andreas replies: "Here you should have entered a route on the server instead of the GW (0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.100 / permanent)".

    "0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.100" is the default gateway (= the default gateway route).

    Are there any official statements in Technet here?

    a) If a machine does not have a default gateway, it cannot (directly) access the Internet. You believe me even without technet.

    b) If a machine does not have a default gateway and the machine routes, the routed packets do not come to the Internet either. Hopefully you will believe me even without technet.

    c) A machine does not need a default gateway - either because it should not be able to access the Internet or because it does not direct Should have access to the Internet (but only via a proxy, for example). However, this is completely independent of whether the machine is routing.

    Thorsten

  • text / html7 / 12/2011 2:29:40 PMMatthias Wolf0

    Hello Thorsten,

     

    what I remembered at the time was:

    > a server that routes between two networks should not have a GW by design (on both nics)
    > But your problem is that your DSL router cannot find the way back to 10.0.0.0/24. Here you have to
    > Explicitly enter a route into the 10 network on the router.

    But:

    > "0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.100" is the default gateway (= the default gateway route)

    I missed that. You are of course right, this achieves the same effect.

    > a) If a machine does not have a default gateway, it cannot (directly) access the Internet. You believe me even without technet.
    > b) If a machine does not have a default gateway and the machine routes, the routed packets do not get into the Internet either. Hopefully you will believe me> without technet.
    > c) A machine does not need a default gateway - either because it should not be able to access the Internet or because it does notdirect Should have access to the Internet (but> for example only via a proxy). However, this is completely independent of whether the machine is routing.

    Thanks, that the clients should also be able to access the Internet, I had completely disregarded my considerations.

     


  • text / html7 / 12/2011 3:36:35 PM Thorsten Kampe0

    * Matthias Wolf (Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:29:40 +0000)

    "0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.100" is the default gateway (=
    the default gateway route)

    I missed that. You're right, of course, this becomes the
    same effect achieved.

    Not just the same effect. The setting of the default gateway via the GUI sets exactly this route, that's the joke.

    Thorsten