You should be able to do this and allow SBS to use its inbuilt PPPoE
(however from what I've heard its -incredibly- flakey). You need to login
to the router and turn DHCP off and SBS will handle the Dynamic routing. If
you're having two NIC's then you'll need to assign one of them as the LAN
(common SBS LAN range is 192.168.16.x) and the Internet interface gets its
IP address from the ISP. I'm not sure if the Linksys can be used as just an
Access Point however, it would look something like this:
Internet --> SBS -->WAP --> LAN
(note this is not the 'recommended' or best practice but will suffice if you
don't want to buy any new equipment)
Personally, I'd get another WAP and sit it on the SBS LAN. Would look
something like below:
Internet --> Modem --> Linksys Wireless Router --> SBS --> WAP --> LAN
You can attach the SBS box to the Linksys Wireless Router on one NIC and
leave the DHCP on its subnet (typically 192.168.0.x or 10.x.x.x), this will
create you a perimiter 'wild' side so should you have any people who need
just internet access in your office they can connect there rather than be on
your secure LAN.
You'd then need to get a Wireless Access Point/Switch that you can connect
the clients to for the SBS LAN so your authenticated users can access the
SBS box.
This method is more secure than previous example, provided you setup
wireless security.
You might also want to post this in the sbs group
(microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs) there's a lot of SBS MVP's who might
have finer points to concentrate on
E.
E.
"JRC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>I am trying to help someone who has a small office with DSL.
>
> He originally had his Verizon DSL with a Westell 6100 modem connected
> to the uplink port on a Linksys WRT54GS wireless router. The four
> workstations in the office would connect to the router either via
> cabled or wireless connections. The router acted as the DHCP server.
> All workstations had connections to the internet through the DSL line,
> but there was periodic trouble with machines seeing each other.
>
>
> He decided he wanted to add a server running MS Small Business 2003
> server to the network. He wants the server to act as the DHCP server
> and have all the workstations be able to access shared data and
> programs from the server.
>
>
> The server now has 2 network cards. I began by attaching the DSL modem
>
> directly to one of the NICs in the server. I tried several IPs,
> including the one that had previously been assigned to the wireless
> router, but was not able to get a LAN connection. After speaking with
> Verizon, they said the MAC address of the Linksys router was set in the
>
> modem and the modem had to be connected through the router. Sure
> enough if I did not change any IPs and connected the modem to the
> uplink port in the router and connected the server to another router
> port, I had connectivity. I went through all the configuration screens
>
> to find where the MAC address was set or could be changed, but I could
> not locate it. I reconnected the modem directly to the server and
> continued to modify IPs until I got a connection, then attempted to
> connect the server to the uplink port on the router, but even though I
> had turned off the DHCP on the router that caused me to loose
> connectivity.
>
>
> In frustration, I reattached the DSL modem to the uplink port in the
> router, disabled one of the NICs in the server, reset the router to
> handle DHCP, and connected the server to the network as a peer device.
> The workstations are able to log into the domain, but are having
> trouble accessing network devices - such as the office printer.
>
>
> Is there a way to connect the DSL line to one of the NICs in the
> server, connect the 2nd NIC in the server to wireless router and allow
> the server to act as the DHCP server. The router should simply act as
> a hub that allows wireless connectivity to the workstations.
>
>
> What configuration settings do I need to check on the modem? router?
> server? The router seems to be causing some type of conflict that I
> have not been able to narrow down.
>
|