Demand Dial PPTP VPN fails

I have set up a two way persistent demand dial PPTP connection between two
W2003 servers (sbs actually). The purpose of the link is to allow telephone
calls to pass between the two sites as internal calls. Both exchanges are
connected to the LAN. The two servers are FOURSERV which uses the
192.168.14.0 subnet and EASTSERV which uses the 192.168.3.0 subnet.

My problem is that after a few hours (not sure how many), the link seems to
fail. Although RRAS at each end shows the status to be connected, I cannot
ping the server ip addresses or any other addresses from either end of the
link.

If I force a disconnection at either end, the link re-connects itself and
then works fine for a few more hours. Can anyone shed any light on what is
going on here please.

Thanks

1. Make sure you have the latest NIC drivers. I have heard in the past of
Nic Drivers causing this.

2. Turn off the power saver features of the Nics.
Go to the properties of the "Local Area Connection"
Click the Configure button next to the Nic Name
Select the power Management Tab
Should be obvious from there.

If it still gives you trouble, I don't have any other suggestions at this
point.

--
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.
-----------------------------------------------------


"Frank Salter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AE914B2D-5FE5-4873-9783-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have set up a two way persistent demand dial PPTP connection between two
> W2003 servers (sbs actually). The purpose of the link is to allow
> telephone
> calls to pass between the two sites as internal calls. Both exchanges are
> connected to the LAN. The two servers are FOURSERV which uses the
> 192.168.14.0 subnet and EASTSERV which uses the 192.168.3.0 subnet.
>
> My problem is that after a few hours (not sure how many), the link seems
> to
> fail. Although RRAS at each end shows the status to be connected, I cannot
> ping the server ip addresses or any other addresses from either end of the
> link.
>
> If I force a disconnection at either end, the link re-connects itself and
> then works fine for a few more hours. Can anyone shed any light on what is
> going on here please.
>
> Thanks

I have duplicated the problem on 2 other servers using different NIC types,
but I am interested by your comments on power saving and am trying them out
on one pair of servers only. Any other ideas still welcome.

Thanks

"Phillip Windell" wrote:

> 1. Make sure you have the latest NIC drivers. I have heard in the past of
> Nic Drivers causing this.
>
> 2. Turn off the power saver features of the Nics.
> Go to the properties of the "Local Area Connection"
> Click the Configure button next to the Nic Name
> Select the power Management Tab
> Should be obvious from there.
>
> If it still gives you trouble, I don't have any other suggestions at this
> point.
>
> --
> 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Frank Salter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:AE914B2D-5FE5-4873-9783-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I have set up a two way persistent demand dial PPTP connection between two
> > W2003 servers (sbs actually). The purpose of the link is to allow
> > telephone
> > calls to pass between the two sites as internal calls. Both exchanges are
> > connected to the LAN. The two servers are FOURSERV which uses the
> > 192.168.14.0 subnet and EASTSERV which uses the 192.168.3.0 subnet.
> >
> > My problem is that after a few hours (not sure how many), the link seems
> > to
> > fail. Although RRAS at each end shows the status to be connected, I cannot
> > ping the server ip addresses or any other addresses from either end of the
> > link.
> >
> > If I force a disconnection at either end, the link re-connects itself and
> > then works fine for a few more hours. Can anyone shed any light on what is
> > going on here please.
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
>