Welcome to ISAserver.org

VPN Client traffic to Remote Site VPN

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [ISA Server 2004 General ] >> ISA 2004 SBS >> VPN Client traffic to Remote Site VPN

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

VPN Client traffic to Remote Site VPN - 25.Oct.2005 1:11:00 AM

spigot66

Posts: 8
Joined: 20.Dec.2004
From: Connecticut
Status: offline

Since upgrading to ISA 2004 via the SBS SP, VPN Clients that connect to the Main Office can no longer connect to the Branch Office which is itself connected to the Main Office via a site-to-site VPN. The branch office is still using ISA 2000. Before upgrading the main office, I could VPN in to the main office, then connect to the branch office server in Explorer and I could call up the branch office server terminal.

Now, when I try to connect to the branch office server I can watch my computer (Source Network = VPN Clients) try to connect to the branch server (Destination Network = Branch_Office) but all attempts result in "Denied Connection" with no rule specified. The protocols that are denied are the ones you would expect such as NetBios Session, Microsoft CIFS (TCP), etc.

The default "SBS Protected Networks Access Rule" is in place which allows All Outbound Traffic from All Protected Networks to All Protected Networks. The Branch_Office network and the VPN Clients network are both part of All Protected Networks.

The connection between the Main office server and the Branch office server is functioning, AD replication is active and I can access the branch server from the Main server and from local computers on the Internal netowrk.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Post #: 1

Featured Links*

RE: VPN Client traffic to Remote Site VPN - 25.Oct.2005 9:46:00 AM

spigot66

Posts: 8
Joined: 20.Dec.2004
From: Connecticut
Status: offline

Figured it out. I had a Network Rule that was routing traffic from the Internal network to the Branch_Office. I added VPN Clients to the Source Networks of this rule and all is good!

(in reply to spigot66)

Post #: 2