How can I find my routers?

Behind our firewall, we use 10.x.x.x (255.0.0.0). Our remote sites are 192.x.x.x, I'm told, as our
remote sites are connected via DSL lines, and it's my understanding that all the DSL routers use
addresses of 192.x.x.x (don't know the mask).

I'm supposed to try and document our network. I already have Visio 2003, and I've downloaded Neon's
LANsurveyor, which will "discover" equipment connected to the network.

I've scanned the range of 10.x.x.x and LANsurveyor finds all our PCs here at the main site. I've
also scanned the range of 192.x.x.x to find our routers and remote PCs, but LANsurveyor
finds...nothing. (Our NW admins can use NetSupport and take control of remote PC knowing nothing
except the remote PC's IP address.) If NetSupport can talk to a remote PC, why can't I?

So I guess my basic questions is...Can I, and of so how, do I find my routers and PCs at the remote
site(s) from the main site? Or do I have to go to each site to run LANsurveyor?

Thanks in advance,

Tom

DSL Routers (from your telco) typically use the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet (/24 =
255.255.255.0).

NetSupport is a remote access software which basically, is connecting to an
'agent' that is installed on the remote PC. This 'agent' allows the
connection from the internet (offsite PC). It does not give access to the
network, just the PC.

In order for you to scan both networks from one location, the two networks
would have to be connected (VPN, point to point T1, etc).

If the NW Admin will allow it, you can use his (or her) connection and scan
the remote office network using that PC.

You can also remote in to the other offices by designating a PC at each
location as the remote connection point and install something like GoToMyPc
or LogMeIn. That will give you a PC on each network that you can then runs
your inquiries on. It doesn't 'connect' your networks but it gives you
centralized access to them.

t




"Tcs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Behind our firewall, we use 10.x.x.x (255.0.0.0). Our remote sites are
> 192.x.x.x, I'm told, as our
> remote sites are connected via DSL lines, and it's my understanding that
> all the DSL routers use
> addresses of 192.x.x.x (don't know the mask).
>
> I'm supposed to try and document our network. I already have Visio 2003,
> and I've downloaded Neon's
> LANsurveyor, which will "discover" equipment connected to the network.
>
> I've scanned the range of 10.x.x.x and LANsurveyor finds all our PCs here
> at the main site. I've
> also scanned the range of 192.x.x.x to find our routers and remote PCs,
> but LANsurveyor
> finds...nothing. (Our NW admins can use NetSupport and take control of
> remote PC knowing nothing
> except the remote PC's IP address.) If NetSupport can talk to a remote
> PC, why can't I?
>
> So I guess my basic questions is...Can I, and of so how, do I find my
> routers and PCs at the remote
> site(s) from the main site? Or do I have to go to each site to run
> LANsurveyor?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom

it might be that whatever ping or port scan technique lansurveyor is using
is being blocked by your firewall or the remote site firewalls.

"Tcs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Behind our firewall, we use 10.x.x.x (255.0.0.0). Our remote sites are
> 192.x.x.x, I'm told, as our
> remote sites are connected via DSL lines, and it's my understanding that
> all the DSL routers use
> addresses of 192.x.x.x (don't know the mask).
>
> I'm supposed to try and document our network. I already have Visio 2003,
> and I've downloaded Neon's
> LANsurveyor, which will "discover" equipment connected to the network.
>
> I've scanned the range of 10.x.x.x and LANsurveyor finds all our PCs here
> at the main site. I've
> also scanned the range of 192.x.x.x to find our routers and remote PCs,
> but LANsurveyor
> finds...nothing. (Our NW admins can use NetSupport and take control of
> remote PC knowing nothing
> except the remote PC's IP address.) If NetSupport can talk to a remote
> PC, why can't I?
>
> So I guess my basic questions is...Can I, and of so how, do I find my
> routers and PCs at the remote
> site(s) from the main site? Or do I have to go to each site to run
> LANsurveyor?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom

oh, and even worse, if the incoming dsl routers do nat for their respective
remote sites you won't be able to scan anything except maybe a single
machine that is designated as the target for incoming requests. most basic
nat systems route all outgoing requests to a single ip and remember who was
connected where to return replies to the right machine, but outside
initiated connections/pings can only get routed to a specific machine based
on a single default setting or maybe a per-port incoming rule on a really
smart firewall.

"Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> it might be that whatever ping or port scan technique lansurveyor is using
> is being blocked by your firewall or the remote site firewalls.
>
> "Tcs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Behind our firewall, we use 10.x.x.x (255.0.0.0). Our remote sites are
>> 192.x.x.x, I'm told, as our
>> remote sites are connected via DSL lines, and it's my understanding that
>> all the DSL routers use
>> addresses of 192.x.x.x (don't know the mask).
>>
>> I'm supposed to try and document our network. I already have Visio 2003,
>> and I've downloaded Neon's
>> LANsurveyor, which will "discover" equipment connected to the network.
>>
>> I've scanned the range of 10.x.x.x and LANsurveyor finds all our PCs here
>> at the main site. I've
>> also scanned the range of 192.x.x.x to find our routers and remote PCs,
>> but LANsurveyor
>> finds...nothing. (Our NW admins can use NetSupport and take control of
>> remote PC knowing nothing
>> except the remote PC's IP address.) If NetSupport can talk to a remote
>> PC, why can't I?
>>
>> So I guess my basic questions is...Can I, and of so how, do I find my
>> routers and PCs at the remote
>> site(s) from the main site? Or do I have to go to each site to run
>> LANsurveyor?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Tom
>
>