Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Hi, I set a server at office for my colleagues to access remotely at their home to share files. However, my colleagues could only connect the VPN but cannot see those shared files. At the same time, I can also connect the remote desktop. Why I cannot see those shared files even I have connected the VPN?
If you VPN is like mine you will be using an external IP address to connect to your router on your network. From here you still need to navigate to your shared files for example
step 1 connect to vpn, vpn connects
step 2 open a browser window type in local address of server with shared file on eg
\\75.278.19.0\shared this should get you in to see the shared filesif you are running exchange on your 2003 server you can also access that from outside the office
http://yourexternalipaddresshere/exchange
or if you connect to your VPn first
http://yourlocalexchangeserveripaddresshere/exchange
J
0 
Usually, this is a problem with name resolution. Are they attempting to connect via \\servername?
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
I agree with where hero is going, have you imported any applicable WINS addresses or verified that the home PC's dont have any type of static addresses/other NW info entered?
0
You shouldn't configure a client for a WINS server if you have no server providing WINS name resolution. :-) I meant do you actually have a WINS server in your environment. If you do, make sure the VPN clients are being configured to use it. If you don't have a WINS server, you could consider making use of an lmhost file on the VPN client machines.
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
you only use Win's in a Win NT4.0 env, this is a windows 2003 DC, which Win's is not used, but DNS is.. make the worksta is question, made them part of the Domain, you will then have to bring-up your VPN tunnel and then you should log into the Domain, then your shares should come alive.
Buddy
0
"you only use Win's in a Win NT4.0 env, this is a windows 2003 DC"
Really?
So you're saying NetBios name resolution is not used in a windows 2000/2003 domain?
There are a lot of things that still use WINS that Microsoft doesn't tell you about.
For example, take a look at how Exchange *2003* uses WINS.
http://www.computerperformance.co.uk/w2k3/services/WINS_exchange.htm
Certified newbies think WINS isn't needed. Those of us with a lot of experience beg to differ.
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
No, Win's is no longer used in windows 2000/2003, you only use win's in a legacy system - if you have old app's that then you might be required to use win's, other than that, you should be only using DNS. I have windows 2003 exch running and I am not using win's at all on my network and everything is fine, can you show me proof,that these new programs use netbios? I no it, send me a sniff, of you exch server and block out all your ip address and just post the protocols that are being used? I am not no newbie, I been in the networking business for 25 years.
Buddy
0
\\SERVER\sharename is NetBios not DNS format.
Hence will try to find I.P. address by following means (in order)
1. LMHOST file (local)
2. WINS (if enabled)
3. Broadcast.A lot of networks have functioning NetBios because broadcasting is happening behind the scenes (and some Windows machine, doesn't need to be Server, has the browser service running and is maintaining a NetBios browse list).
These broadcasts will not get past the Remote Access server. It won't hurt to set up this server as a WIN server.
However since you can't access resources by I.P. addresses either, I don't think it's a name resolution problem.
Can the users ping the server holding the share?
Make sure that their home machines have "NetBios over TCP/IP" enabled.
Make sure they have M$ client enabled.
Make sure their home firewalls are allowing M$ file and print traffic on the VPN connection.
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - BILL CLINTON
0
I have no idea what your talking about the \\server\share , is not DNS?, Not, it is, have any of you's ever setup a 2000/2003 DC's , if your using WIN's on your network and your client's are all either XP Pro or Windows 2000 - you don't need win's at all - PERIOD! everthing is encapulated so any thing you call netbios can be routed over subnet's . look at you lmhost files "there empty" you only use WIN's in old Legecy system's (win9X , win nt4.0 worksta.. etc)
Buddy
0
Dude, you're dead wrong. Look again at the article I just linked you to. If you're right, why would there be an entire article about the use of WINS with Exchange 2000/2003? Have you forgotten or didn't know Exchange 2000/2003 depends upon Active Directory?
With every new iteration of Windows, NetBIOS/WINS is used less and less, but it's not completely not used yet. For smaller environments, particularly with one subnet, you can get away without it.
"I am not using win's at all on my network and everything is fine, can you show me proof,that these new programs use netbios?"
Exactly, do a sniff. And btw, yes, it does use netbios/wins. I don't care how long you've worked in IT. Active Directory hasn't been around for 25 years, and is irrelevant to if NetBIOS is used or not. I sent proof in that article with an explanation of how it's used.
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
\\server\share is non-heirarchical for a start - how can a DNS server know where to query for right name resolution it doesn't know?
DNS needs a specific form (e.g. www.computing.net) by which it knows the host, the parent domain of the host, and the parent domain of that subdomain, and so forth. It begins a query with one of 13 Root servers, and then gets referred to DNS servers in charge of the domains in the address reading right to left. Eventually one server knows the specific IP address for the host (e.g. www).
"LMHosts is empty" - and that proves what? Reread my post on broadcasts behind the scenes.
And definitely read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system
What's allowed you to continue without knowing this stuff is M$'s automatic "appending" (to use their word) of DNS suffixes. You can use single, unqualified host names and Windows will automatically add the DNS parent domains to it. Go to Advanced Settings of TCP/IP, DNS tab, and see radio button "Append Primary and Connection Specific DNS suffixes"
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - BILL CLINTON
0
check M$ client =
1. control panel> network connections> (right click relevant connection) properties. Look to find M$ client (extremely likely it will be there)
2. run>services.msc check Workstation service is running and set for automatic start; while you're there check the same for "TCP/IP Netbios helper"
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - BILL CLINTON
0
I don't use Wins and all my friends don't use wins on there networks, unless there using legecy systems.
Buddy
0
Retroguy:
"\\server\share is non-heirarchical for a start - how can a DNS server know where to query for right name resolution it doesn't know?"
use \\<servername.domain>\share
=============
PS - I am putting in place a 2k3 network and i DO plan on using wins.#1. DHCP, DNS, and WINS are too integrated in my mind, and the last thing i want is to complicate my life
#2. What's wrong with having a
failover" resolution method besides bandwidth issues? I have a small network (10 servers + 100 clients).
0
"wins is not used in windows 2000/2003 systems, your all wrong."
Did you or did you not read the article I linked you to? You didn't, because had you actually read it (and actually understood NetBIOS and how it broadcasts), you'd realize that if you only use one subnet, broadcasting would have fit the bill for your network. You'd also have seen the reference to this KB article discussing how WINS is still used for Exchange.
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=837391
So, go ahead and argue about how this is Windows 2003, and we don't need no stinkin' WINS! I've however worked on larger environments, and I know darn well you still do. If you'd like to argue with Microsoft and I on this, please realize how rediculous you will appear.
I have seen first hand and resolved problems with clients VPNing in to a network, could NOT use Outlook, could connect to file shares. It ended up being DNS issues. But how did they connect to file shares?! Oh my gosh, it's WINS!
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
Nowadays WINS is being replaced by DNS. There are only a few instances when WINS is required like hero said.
I have NOT lost my mind — I have it backed up on tape somewhere
0
yes, the debate tended to push the concepts into black and white, whereas most of us at first(including AsUser) were talking about a shade of grey: WINS is on the way out, not needed in some networks, but perhaps not as dead as M$ would have you believe.
The original problem mentioned a WAN link - which means the delimitation of a broadcast realm (to use the formal Cisco terminology). In that case, the usual NetBios mechanism of broadcasting is ineffectual, necessitating a WINS server. That's IF applications or user tasks are used which require NetBios. But at least in my experience, there are still plenty of those. For example, Network Neighborhood or drive mapping.
Noone could ever accuse Micro$oft of not having business sense, and they know that to just kill NetBios would create countless problems. There are still plenty of legacy apps around, and still many users who use the NetBios style M$ networking. As a previous poster said, it's prudent to use WINS on multi network (i.e. multi broadcast realm) domains just in case. That's why i said in a previous post "it can't hurt" to use WINS.
When AsUser says "WINS is not used in W2000/2003 networks" I think he is treating WINS as somehow a distinct service from NetBios, whereas it's simply the Name Resolution service for multi-network NetBios based networks (viz. Windows and IBM OS/2 Warp). Whereas the debate here centered on NetBios, but made use of WINS BECAUSE a router and WAN link was involved. WINS in many ways is a side issue here. Microsoft phased out NetBios, in favour of Winsock - the TCP/IP windows networking API's. WINS was simply a small part of this change.
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - BILL CLINTON
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
