VPN Question

[lchyi]

I have to VPN into a network with a 192.168.0.XXX but the network I'm coming from is 192.168.0.XXX also. This causes some kind of incompatibility in which I am able to connect just fine to the VPN server but unable to access shares and/or ping other computers in the network. Is there a solution to this without changing the DHCP server to assign 192.168.1.XXX addresses on one end? I tried configuring the NIC to have two IP addresses (ie 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.0.2) but for some reason it is still unable to connect to network shares and/or see other computers.

Any suggestions?

 

[marulee]

While you are connected to VPN server?
How is your network configuration at the moment?

and PPTP? or IKE?

 

[InlineFive]

My knowledge of VPN technology is very limited but I believe that if you are using PPTP then you will be okay. However if you are using L2TP then you need to have the L2TP clients on a separate subnet.

 

[Rafael]

AFAIK, You cannot have the same IP range for the VPN and your local network.
Even if you assign an IP that you are sure that it will not generate an IP conflict.
That is the reason you can't browse the LAN thru the VPN.
You will be able to connect to the VPN, it will assign the IP, but you won't browse or navigate in the VPN LAN. I had this problem before.
I don't know if there is a solution for what you want. Besides changing the IP range.

Rafael

 

[RebateMonger]

I'm far from an expert at this stuff, but I believe you will need to add static routes to your PC, so that it knows which interface to use to reach the remote IP address.

In a Command Prompt:
"route /?" for help

Static routes should at least allow you to reach remote hosts using their IP addresses. You may also have to add some HOSTS entries if you want to access remote hosts by name, rather than by IP address, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Here's a UseNet thread discussing this problem and the static routing workaround.

 

[lchyi]

Thanks for that. I tried the route thing and sent the instructions to the user at the other end. Let's hope it works!

 

[nweaver]

wouldn't it be easier/better long term to just change from 192.168.0.x, since most consumer gear uses this? try a 172.16, or 10.x

 

[ktwebb]

I was thinking the same thing. OP didn't mention that I noticed but assumably this is a small home network with the user connecting to work or something via VPN. In that instance how many nodes could you have on the home LAN? 5? 10? Much easier to just change the scheme than to try adding static routes.

 

[lchyi]

Changing the addresses actually isn't an option. It's one half of the business to say the least. I thought of that first, then I figured the complications that come out of that would be a bloody nightmare.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: lchyi
Changing the addresses actually isn't an option. It's one half of the business to say the least. I thought of that first, then I figured the complications that come out of that would be a bloody nightmare.

Why do you expect it to be a nightmare? How big is the network? It's apparently on a single subnet with a single DHCP Server.

I've had to re-scope a couple of office networks, and the toughest thing was finding printer passwords for resetting the static IP addresses of networked printers. If you are using Windows DHCP and DNS, then everything pretty much automatically updates on the clients and in DNS.

It might be easier to fix the IP addresses than suffer with VPN and routing issues forevermore.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
It might be easier to fix the IP addresses than suffer with VPN and routing issues forevermore.

Absolutely. That network needs to be readdressed immediately or it is just going to be unbearably painful down the road.

Re-addressing networks doesn't require much work at all. all you have to do is change the router and create the DHCP scope/AD stuff and you're all set.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Absolutely. That network needs to be readdressed immediately or it is just going to be unbearably painful down the road.

As (I think) nweaver was implying, you might consider re-addressing BOTH networks. Using the common 192.168.0.0/24 subnet could be an ongoing source of VPN routing issues from all kinds of remote locations. Too many offices and hotels use that subnet.

 

[lchyi]

The network printers and other devices with static IPs can be a pain for me so that was the first thought on my mind. To be honest it's the things that I don't think of when I re-address the network that I'm worried about. But what they hey, you guys are right. I'll try to do that tonight... wish me luck.

 

[spidey07]

That's why you use DHCP for everything. Never statically address anything other than an actual server or network device.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: lchyi
But what they hey, you guys are right. I'll try to do that tonight... wish me luck.

Wow. Somebody actually taking our advice. :Q I'm in awe. Good luck.

You might want to make a list and check it twice (like Santa Claus). And check that you know how to get into each device and change its IP address. People hate you when they come in the next morning and can't print.

 

[lchyi]

Ooh yes, I know that feeling all too well. IT == Scapegoat