I doubt that it is the remote machine trying to become the master browser.
Browsing is driven by LAN broadcasts, and these broadcasts don't cross WAN
links.
It is much more likely that it is one of your LAN clients. If a LAN
client cannot find the master browser, it assumes the browsing service has
failed and forces an election by nominating itself.
I suspect the real problem here is the VPN connection. When a remote
user (RAS or VPN) connects, the server becomes multihomed. It now has
another interface with a different IP address as well as its LAN interface
and IP. This is bad news for a browse master, and was a big problem in NT.
There are two KB articles on the problems you get running remote access
on a DC. In addition to Netbios names and browsing problems, you can get DNS
related problems because of the multiple interfaces/IPs. The KB articles are
292822 and 830063 .
"John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:74b901c4764f$400b41b0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> We have a network where remote computers connect over VPN.
> The connections can either be using the SonicWall globle
> VPN client or a router to router VPN connection. The
> problem is that the remote computer wants to become tha
> master browser. When this happend we get the following
> message in the error logs on the 2003 server.
>
> MRxSmb - " The master browser has received a server
> announcement from the computer XXXXX that believes that it
> is the master browser for the domain on transport
> NetBT_Tcpip_{8574FDAA-9CC8-4C14-84. The master browser is
> stopping or an election is being forced.
>
> Does this mean that the server is passing the master
> browser control to the other computer or is the election
> being forced and the server keeping the master browser
> function. I hate it when an error message has an "or"
> condition. Why can't the message state which is being done?
>
> What I don't want is any other workstation no matter what
> to EVER become the master browser. I always want a server
> to maintain control. Is there a policy that can be set to
> force the server to always maintain control. In our case
> with several servers I really don't care which one is the
> master, in case one is down, I just don't want a
> workstation on the other end of a VPN connection becoming
> the master.
>
> Thanks
>
|