Welcome to ISAserver.org

VPN Established (So Says RRAS), but not working

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [ISA Server 2004 Firewall] >> VPN >> VPN Established (So Says RRAS), but not working

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

VPN Established (So Says RRAS), but not working - 1.Jul.2004 7:56:00 AM

MonsterMaxx

Posts: 79
Joined: 2.May2004
Status: offline

Following chapter 5, VPN Main & Branch w/ ISA at both.

It all appears to be working, but clients cannot see other network.

RRAS shows the connection established in both directions.

Each ISA server can ping the other's internal and external IP addresses and all the client machines on the other network.

Clients can ping the other ISA server's external IP, but not the internal IP (or any other machines on the other network.)

{yes, I did have to setup a firewall rule to allow pings on both machines}

The ISA servers cannot access machines on the other network with explorer. Tried by name and IP.

I feel like I made a lot of progress tonight, but I'm too tired to figure out the remaining problem.

Hopefully when I get up in the AM and check, one of you will have pointed out my error.

Thanks in advance.

[ July 01, 2004, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: MonsterMaxx ]

Post #: 1

Featured Links*

RE: VPN Established (So Says RRAS), but not working - 1.Jul.2004 10:24:00 AM

ClintD

Posts: 1833
Joined: 26.Jan.2001
From: Keller, TX
Status: offline

Break out Network Monitor on the remote site (on one of the servers) and see if the ICMP Echo packets are actually reaching it.

If so, does the server reply?

Does the Echo Reply have the same destination MAC address as source MAC address of the ICMP Echo? This should be the MAC address of the ISA Server's internal NIC.

When the ICMP Echo routes through ISA and is placed on the remote network, the source MAC is changed to the remote ISA's internal NICs MAC - when the server replies, it has to reply through the same interface.

[ July 01, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: ClintD ]

(in reply to MonsterMaxx)

Post #: 2