Add Second Same Subnet To LAN

I have 2 LAN's in different geographical locations with separate subnets (A -
192.168.0.0/24 and B - 192.168.1.0/24) that are connected via IP/VPN routers.
Default gateway for Subnet A is 192.168.0.200 (Router A), and default gateway
for Subnet B is 192.168.1.200 (Router B).

That all works well and good. I can communicate between the subnets for all
the connected machines.

For testing and pre-deployment reasons I need to create a new 192.168.1.x
subnet at the same location as Subnet A. The boxes hanging off this new
Subnet C only need to see one of the DC's in A, which is easy enough to do by
giving the 2nd NIC of DC A a 192.168.1.x address and connecting it to Subnet
C.

However, from DC A, if I ping 192.168.1.170 it should go through the default
gateway (Router A), but pinging 192.168.1.20 should go through the 2nd NIC.

How do I do this using persistant routes?

Assuming you just want to access one of remote computers, you may configure peer to peer connection using route command. This link may help,

Solution for peer to peer VPN using the same IPYou may setup a different IP range or subnet for peer to peer VPN. For example, in your case, you can use IP 172.16.5.1 for the VPN host and 172.16.5.2 for ...
http://www.chicagotech.net/casestudy/peervpn1.htm


Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on http://www.ChicagoTech.net
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on http://www.HowToNetworking.com
"Andrew Hayes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:0855F8B5-4FEC-4DB9-8DD5-(E-Mail Removed)...
I have 2 LAN's in different geographical locations with separate subnets (A -
192.168.0.0/24 and B - 192.168.1.0/24) that are connected via IP/VPN routers.
Default gateway for Subnet A is 192.168.0.200 (Router A), and default gateway
for Subnet B is 192.168.1.200 (Router B).

That all works well and good. I can communicate between the subnets for all
the connected machines.

For testing and pre-deployment reasons I need to create a new 192.168.1.x
subnet at the same location as Subnet A. The boxes hanging off this new
Subnet C only need to see one of the DC's in A, which is easy enough to do by
giving the 2nd NIC of DC A a 192.168.1.x address and connecting it to Subnet
C.

However, from DC A, if I ping 192.168.1.170 it should go through the default
gateway (Router A), but pinging 192.168.1.20 should go through the 2nd NIC.

How do I do this using persistant routes?

"Andrew Hayes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0855F8B5-4FEC-4DB9-8DD5-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have 2 LAN's in different geographical locations with separate subnets
>(A -
> 192.168.0.0/24 and B - 192.168.1.0/24) that are connected via IP/VPN
> routers.
> Default gateway for Subnet A is 192.168.0.200 (Router A), and default
> gateway
> for Subnet B is 192.168.1.200 (Router B).
>
> That all works well and good. I can communicate between the subnets for
> all
> the connected machines.
>
> For testing and pre-deployment reasons I need to create a new 192.168.1.x
> subnet at the same location as Subnet A. The boxes hanging off this new
> Subnet C only need to see one of the DC's in A, which is easy enough to do
> by
> giving the 2nd NIC of DC A a 192.168.1.x address and connecting it to
> Subnet
> C.
>
> However, from DC A, if I ping 192.168.1.170 it should go through the
> default
> gateway (Router A), but pinging 192.168.1.20 should go through the 2nd
> NIC.
>
> How do I do this using persistant routes?

Possibly:

route add -p 192.168.1.20 mask 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.20 192.168.1.?
Network Mask
Gateway Interface

"Interface" is the IP# of the DC that you never told us what it was.
Normally the "Interface" is not specified and is automatically determined,
but in this case I think it needs to be specified. The Metric does not need
to be specified.

Not entirely sure it will work,..it is just a guess.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Troubleshooting Client Authentication on Access Rules in ISA Server 2004
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...7/ts_rules.doc

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Microsoft ISA Server Partners: Partner Hardware Solutions
http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/e...epartners.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------

Sorry Robert. That URL is 404. Will look around some more though, but I've
done a lot of googling before I resorted to posting to the MS NG.

Thanks for the comments Phillip. Had to do some jiggery pokery, but I sort of
got it to work.

Biggest problem was getting DC A to route packets through the right NIC but
I did this by splitting the 192.168.1.x into 2 subnets using a
255.255.255.128 mask.

So my routing table had these 2 extra entries:

192.168.1.0 MASK 255.255.255.128 192.168.1.10
(packets destined for 192.168.1.1 ~ 192.168.1.126 go through the 2nd NIC)

192.168.1.128 MASK 255.255.255.128 192.168.0.200
(packets destined for 192.168.1.129 ~ 192.168.1.254 go through Router A)

Now, when I tracert 192.168.1.20, it shows it going through 192.168.1.10,
whereas when I tracert 192.168.1.170, it shows it going through 192.168.0.10,
then 192.168.0.200, then 192.168.1.200.

That is all well and good.

Only trouble is, I do need some of the local 1.x servers to communicate with
the remote 1.x servers, so I need DC A to route between the 2 subnets.

Tried RRAS. That didn't work. Tried Network Bridge. That's didn't work
either. Of course, I'm sure I didn't do it right.

So now I'm looking for info on how to route between subnets without using
Remote Access or Dial-On-Demand, but a straight forward LAN-to-LAN route.