W2K3 IP forwarding (not routing)

Hi:

I have a Windows 2003 server with 3 NIC cards. One has a public IP address
(200.200.200.1) that RRAS is routing with NAT to the 2nd NIC with a private
IP address(192.168.0.1). This is working, and is way cool. However...

I have the 3rd NIC (200.200.200.2) that I would like to have every IP
packet/port forwarded mercilessly to (192.168.100.1). [I have routers
galore that provide connectivity between the 192 subnets.]

(IP addresses for illustration only)

Can this be done? W2K3 seems to think that routing (RRAS) is IP forwarding,
and I can't find any setting in properties of NIC cards or RRAS that will
let me do what I want.

Why do I want to do this? Because I want to put a SBS2003 server on the
other side, with Exchange and remote access.

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
-Brian

That isn't really the way to go about it. You can allocate more than one
IP to your public interface in NAT. You can then use NAT to map one public
IP to a private IP. NAT will forward all traffic coming to that public IP to
the private IP on the LAN.

"-B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi:
>
> I have a Windows 2003 server with 3 NIC cards. One has a public IP
address
> (200.200.200.1) that RRAS is routing with NAT to the 2nd NIC with a
private
> IP address(192.168.0.1). This is working, and is way cool. However...
>
> I have the 3rd NIC (200.200.200.2) that I would like to have every IP
> packet/port forwarded mercilessly to (192.168.100.1). [I have routers
> galore that provide connectivity between the 192 subnets.]
>
> (IP addresses for illustration only)
>
> Can this be done? W2K3 seems to think that routing (RRAS) is IP
forwarding,
> and I can't find any setting in properties of NIC cards or RRAS that will
> let me do what I want.
>
> Why do I want to do this? Because I want to put a SBS2003 server on the
> other side, with Exchange and remote access.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks.
> -Brian
>
>

"-B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Can this be done? W2K3 seems to think that routing (RRAS) is IP
forwarding,

RRAS is a "router". IP Forwarding means the same thing as "Routing".
Enabling Routing and enabling IP Forwarding is the same thing. IP
Forwarding has nothing to do with NAT and the use of the term "Forwarding an
IP" with respect to NAT is simply a "slag" term that is not accurate.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

That's why I'm not using NAT to do the "forwarding/routing." It's seems
strange that a $99 Linksys router will do this very thing, and my $10,000
server won't...

Cheers.

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:Oi%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "-B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Can this be done? W2K3 seems to think that routing (RRAS) is IP
> forwarding,
>
> RRAS is a "router". IP Forwarding means the same thing as "Routing".
> Enabling Routing and enabling IP Forwarding is the same thing. IP
> Forwarding has nothing to do with NAT and the use of the term "Forwarding
an
> IP" with respect to NAT is simply a "slag" term that is not accurate.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>

"-B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> That's why I'm not using NAT to do the "forwarding/routing."

Then how are you going to...
"... have every IP packet/port forwarded mercilessly to
(192.168.100.1)..."
....since that is in fact a NAT function,..the process is called "One-toOne
NAT".

> It's seems strange that a $99 Linksys router will do this very thing, and
my $10,000
> server won't...

It has nothing to do with a $10,000 Server. It has to do with using RRAS (a
particular Application) to perform a particular task. I think you have
created a design that, by design will not do what you want because it isn't
designed to.

As far as using RRAS as just a Router, this will tkae care of that.....
299810 - HOW TO: Configure Windows 2000 to Be a Router
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;299810

But I think we need to get a clearer understanding of what you are trying to
do, what conditions you are trying to do it in, and how what you currently
have is designed and rigged up. I think you have a "design vs method"
conflict. It sounds like you might be trying to do something that normally
uses NAT at the "Network Edge" and trying to do it in the middle of a LAN
without NAT.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com