WIndows server 2003 as router

I am trying to setup a Windows server 2003 for a small training room within
our company such that the 2003 server will act as the router and allow the
students to get on the Internet. I configured one Nic card on the server
192.168.0.1 (intranet) and then the second Nic card is 192.168.1.25. I
installed RRAS. The server is connected to the same switch as the training
room PCs. I want the training room PCs to connect to the internet through
this server and they also get their IP address from this server. The server
itself can access the internet but the training PCs cannot. I can ping from
the server to the training room but the training room computers automatically
get IP 192.168.0.x but they cannot ping the 192.168.1.25 NIC on the server.
How can I make this routing work so the classroom can get on the internet? Do
I need to setup Static route, NAT, or what? Please help me.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...d_r_access.asp

Since both subnets are private, I assume there is a router somewhere
doing NAT. So you do not really need NAT on this server.

If you configured NAT it would probably work. But you would be doing
address translation twice (once at your server and again at the NAT router).

If you just enable LAN routing on your server, the problem is that the
Internet router will not know how to reach your added subnet. It only knows
about 192.168.1.0 subnet.

To get to the Internet from your added subnet (and ping between the two
private subnets) you need extra routing on the NAT router. eg

Internet
|
NAT router
192.168.1.254
|
workstations
192.168.1.x dg 192.168.1.254
|
192.168.1.25 dg 192.168.1.254
RRAS
192.168.0.1 dg blank
|
workstations
192.168.0.x dg 192.168.0.1

This will work if the NAT router knows that it can reach the new subnet
via the RRAS router. So a static route on the NAT router

192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.25

would make it work.

If you can't get access to the Internet NAT router, you will have to
make do with NAT on the RRAS router. The problem then doesn't arise, because
all traffic from the 192.168.0.0 subnet is NATed by the RRAS router, and
the Internet NAT router sees all this traffic as coming from 192.168.1.25 .
But you probably won't be able to ping between the private subnets (because
of NAT on the RRAS router) .

"Kenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsC58E253-C549-4D2D-92DA-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am trying to setup a Windows server 2003 for a small training room
within
> our company such that the 2003 server will act as the router and allow the
> students to get on the Internet. I configured one Nic card on the server
> 192.168.0.1 (intranet) and then the second Nic card is 192.168.1.25. I
> installed RRAS. The server is connected to the same switch as the training
> room PCs. I want the training room PCs to connect to the internet through
> this server and they also get their IP address from this server. The
server
> itself can access the internet but the training PCs cannot. I can ping
from
> the server to the training room but the training room computers
automatically
> get IP 192.168.0.x but they cannot ping the 192.168.1.25 NIC on the
server.
> How can I make this routing work so the classroom can get on the internet?
Do
> I need to setup Static route, NAT, or what? Please help me.

Yes you would need to configure NAT on that server as shown in the link below.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;324264

Assuming these computers are not members of an Active Directory domain, you can use
the dhcp allocator as explained that NAT offers and the NAT server will act as a dns
proxy. The computers will then use the lan IP address of the NAT server as their
default gateway. Make sure that you configure a default gateway only on the internet
side nic of the NAT server and in networking properties/advanced settings the lan
side nic should be at the top of the list. --- Steve


"Kenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsC58E253-C549-4D2D-92DA-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I am trying to setup a Windows server 2003 for a small training room within
> our company such that the 2003 server will act as the router and allow the
> students to get on the Internet. I configured one Nic card on the server
> 192.168.0.1 (intranet) and then the second Nic card is 192.168.1.25. I
> installed RRAS. The server is connected to the same switch as the training
> room PCs. I want the training room PCs to connect to the internet through
> this server and they also get their IP address from this server. The server
> itself can access the internet but the training PCs cannot. I can ping from
> the server to the training room but the training room computers automatically
> get IP 192.168.0.x but they cannot ping the 192.168.1.25 NIC on the server.
> How can I make this routing work so the classroom can get on the internet? Do
> I need to setup Static route, NAT, or what? Please help me.

"Steven L Umbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes you would need to configure NAT on that server as shown in the link
> below.

You wouldn't have to if something else upstream already was. Since it is
private IP#s on both sides already, I suspect something else is already
NAT'ing or proxying for the system. So effectively he is just adding another
router & subnet to the LAN. Whatever is doing the NAT'ing or proxing would
need to have a static route added so it knows where the new subnet is
located and how to get retrun traffic to it. Bill laid it out pretty well
in his post.

--

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

I got the impressions he did not have access to the current NAT device and was
looking for a way to control internet access at his location for his computers. ---
Steve

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Steven L Umbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Yes you would need to configure NAT on that server as shown in the link
>> below.
>
> You wouldn't have to if something else upstream already was. Since it is
> private IP#s on both sides already, I suspect something else is already
> NAT'ing or proxying for the system. So effectively he is just adding another
> router & subnet to the LAN. Whatever is doing the NAT'ing or proxing would
> need to have a static route added so it knows where the new subnet is
> located and how to get retrun traffic to it. Bill laid it out pretty well
> in his post.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>
>

It's hard to figure out some of these situations with the small amount of
information we are given, and in some case what little we are given isn't
even correct. So sometimes I just give up and bow-out of trying to deal with
it and go on to another question.


--

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

"Steven L Umbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I got the impressions he did not have access to the current NAT device and
was
> looking for a way to control internet access at his location for his
computers. ---
> Steve
>
> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Steven L Umbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Yes you would need to configure NAT on that server as shown in the link
> >> below.
> >
> > You wouldn't have to if something else upstream already was. Since it is
> > private IP#s on both sides already, I suspect something else is already
> > NAT'ing or proxying for the system. So effectively he is just adding
another
> > router & subnet to the LAN. Whatever is doing the NAT'ing or proxing
would
> > need to have a static route added so it knows where the new subnet is
> > located and how to get retrun traffic to it. Bill laid it out pretty
well
> > in his post.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > www.wandtv.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I hear that! --- Steve

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> It's hard to figure out some of these situations with the small amount of
> information we are given, and in some case what little we are given isn't
> even correct. So sometimes I just give up and bow-out of trying to deal with
> it and go on to another question.
>
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> "Steven L Umbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I got the impressions he did not have access to the current NAT device and
> was
>> looking for a way to control internet access at his location for his
> computers. ---
>> Steve
>>
>> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > "Steven L Umbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Yes you would need to configure NAT on that server as shown in the link
>> >> below.
>> >
>> > You wouldn't have to if something else upstream already was. Since it is
>> > private IP#s on both sides already, I suspect something else is already
>> > NAT'ing or proxying for the system. So effectively he is just adding
> another
>> > router & subnet to the LAN. Whatever is doing the NAT'ing or proxing
> would
>> > need to have a static route added so it knows where the new subnet is
>> > located and how to get retrun traffic to it. Bill laid it out pretty
> well
>> > in his post.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
>> > www.wandtv.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>