🚀 go-pugleaf

If you can ping between them, in both directions, then your IP
connectivity is fine any your configuration on the Cisco is OK.

Have you changed unpl's entry in the WINS database, or if it was the
WINS server, have you changed wan1's pointer to it?

Doug

Vel bekom (sp???)

On 23 Apr 1997, Henrik Scheel wrote:
> I've got a problem with connection between two domains. On both of them I
> got a server. Their names was "wan1" with ip number 172.30.42.2 mask
> 255.255.255.0 and "unp1" with ip number 172.30.42.4 mask 255.255.255.0.
> Between them I had a Olicom bridge. Lately I changed the network
> configuration to be "wan1" with ip number 172.30.42.2 mask 255.255.255.0
> and "unp1" with ip number 172.30.43.130 mask 255.255.255.128. And now
> between them I changed to a Cisco 2500 and 4000 router. Suddenly it's not
> possible to browse fx. unp1 from wan1. And my trust I had between them is
> also gone. And It is not possible to use any ressources from the other
> server. But I can make a PING command ok. Can anybody tell my what is
> wrong.

Douglas M. MacFarlane
madmac@mcs.net

In <01bc4fb2$c96bf600$38a9efc2@hscheel> "Henrik Scheel" <hscheel@post3.tele.dk> writes:
| I've got a problem with connection between two domains. On both of them I
| got a server. Their names was "wan1" with ip number 172.30.42.2 mask
| 255.255.255.0 and "unp1" with ip number 172.30.42.4 mask 255.255.255.0.
| Between them I had a Olicom bridge. Lately I changed the network
| configuration to be "wan1" with ip number 172.30.42.2 mask 255.255.255.0
| and "unp1" with ip number 172.30.43.130 mask 255.255.255.128. And now
| between them I changed to a Cisco 2500 and 4000 router. Suddenly it's not
| possible to browse fx. unp1 from wan1. And my trust I had between them is
| also gone. And It is not possible to use any ressources from the other
| server. But I can make a PING command ok. Can anybody tell my what is
| wrong.

Nothing. :-)

Seems that you're using Microsoft's SMB protocol for communication
between the two networks. Very simple: Browsing via SMB requires
the ability to communicate via broadcasts, but you have put a route
inbetween the two partners that just disables the net-wide broadcasts.
(That's one major practical difference between a router and a bridge:
A router restricts broadcasts to one segment, a bridge doesn't, but is
broadcast-transparent instead.)

There are workarounds for this, of course, such as converting a
broadcast on one side into a unicast directed to the server on the other
side (see "ip helper-address" in the Cisco manual). But this will fail
on a larger scale.

The only scalable way to deal with this is to forget browsing in a
routed environment. The SMB browsing mechanism was not designed to be
used there, thanks Microsoft. This isn't a real restriction, however:
you can of course login and connect drives without browsing. The only
thing you can't do is browsing.

Helge

Helge Oldach <hmo@sep.hamburg.com> wrote in article
<E9AvrB.1AA@sep.hamburg.com>...
> 
> In <01bc4fb2$c96bf600$38a9efc2@hscheel> "Henrik Scheel"
<hscheel@post3.tele.dk> writes:
> | I've got a problem with connection between two domains. On both of them
I
> | got a server. Their names was "wan1" with ip number 172.30.42.2 mask
> | 255.255.255.0 and "unp1" with ip number 172.30.42.4 mask 255.255.255.0.
> | Between them I had a Olicom bridge. Lately I changed the network
> | configuration to be "wan1" with ip number 172.30.42.2 mask
255.255.255.0
> | and "unp1" with ip number 172.30.43.130 mask 255.255.255.128. And now
> | between them I changed to a Cisco 2500 and 4000 router. Suddenly it's
not
> | possible to browse fx. unp1 from wan1. And my trust I had between them
is
> | also gone. And It is not possible to use any ressources from the other
> | server. But I can make a PING command ok. Can anybody tell my what is
> | wrong.

In your first case, both of your IP addresses for WAN1 and UNP1 were on
this subnet: 172.30.42.0 /24. You did not need a router or a bridge or
anything. Two computers on the same subnet do not need anything to connect
them.

Now, WAN1 is still on the 172.30.42.0 /24 subnet, but you have moved the
UNP1 to the 172.30.42.128 /25 subnet. They will need a router between the
two of them, but I am not sure why you have 2 routers. 

Now, since you are able to ping from one of the subnets to the other
subnet, the router is correctly configured. Otherwise, you would not be
able to even send the ICMP echo request packets from one to the other. 

Are you using NT here? Likely, your problem is with the network
configuration, in the software itself. Everything must be working correctly
in hardware for ping to work. 


-- 
Dan Wright
dwright@csi.compuserve.com

<HTML><BODY>
Because broadcasts don't get transmitted over routers, the computers need
help to find each other. The WINS server provides this help. It comes on
the NT Server CD.

<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Seems that you're using Microsoft's SMB protocol for communication
<BR>between the two networks. Very simple: Browsing via SMB requires
<BR>the ability to communicate via broadcasts, but you have put a route
<BR>inbetween the two partners that just disables the net-wide broadcasts.
<BR>(That's one major practical difference between a router and a bridge:
<BR>A router restricts broadcasts to one segment, a bridge doesn't, but is
<BR>broadcast-transparent instead.)
<BR>
<BR>There are workarounds for this, of course, such as converting a
<BR>broadcast on one side into a unicast directed to the server on the other
<BR>side (see "ip helper-address" in the Cisco manual). But this will fail
<BR>on a larger scale.
<BR>
<BR>The only scalable way to deal with this is to forget browsing in a
<BR>routed environment. The SMB browsing mechanism was not designed to be
<BR>used there, thanks Microsoft. This isn't a real restriction, however:
<BR>you can of course login and connect drives without browsing. The only
<BR>thing you can't do is browsing.
<BR>
<BR>Helge
</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;&nbsp;

</BODY>
</HTML>

Bruce Sanderson wrote:
> 
> <HTML><BODY>
> Because broadcasts don't get transmitted over routers, the computers need
> help to find each other. The WINS server provides this help. It comes on
> the NT Server CD.
> 
> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
> <BR>Seems that you're using Microsoft's SMB protocol for communication
> <BR>between the two networks. Very simple: Browsing via SMB requires
> <BR>the ability to communicate via broadcasts, but you have put a route
> <BR>inbetween the two partners that just disables the net-wide broadcasts.
> <BR>(That's one major practical difference between a router and a bridge:
> <BR>A router restricts broadcasts to one segment, a bridge doesn't, but is
> <BR>broadcast-transparent instead.)
> <BR>
> <BR>There are workarounds for this, of course, such as converting a
> <BR>broadcast on one side into a unicast directed to the server on the other
> <BR>side (see "ip helper-address" in the Cisco manual). But this will fail
> <BR>on a larger scale.
> <BR>
> <BR>The only scalable way to deal with this is to forget browsing in a
> <BR>routed environment. The SMB browsing mechanism was not designed to be
> <BR>used there, thanks Microsoft. This isn't a real restriction, however:
> <BR>you can of course login and connect drives without browsing. The only
> <BR>thing you can't do is browsing.
> <BR>
> <BR>Helge
> </BLOCKQUOTE>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;
> 
> </BODY>
> </HTML>

say what? browsing doesn't work via routers and logon does?

there is an easy way to make browsing work over routers.
1) use a WINS server: browser computers will use the wins-server to
retrieve the list of other browsers, even if they are on a remote
network

or

2) put all browser computers (mostly these are the domain controller)
into the LMHOSTS file (%winroot%\system32\drivers\etc\lmhosts), with the
#PRE #DOM:domain_name tags. example:  131.107.2.200 PDC1 #PRE
#DOM:classdom

Stephan


-- 
________________________________________________________________
Stephan Carstens - Hewlett Packard Company - Bad Homburg, GER
CNI,MCNE,MCT,MCSE
e-mail: stephan_carstens@hp.com
HP Web: http://poseidon.gsr.com/staff/scar/index.html
- "I don't speak for Hewlett Packard, nor do they speak for me"
- "The only stupid question is the question unasked"
_________________________________________________________________