Problem with Windows 2003 RAS - Windows NT

This is a discussion on Problem with Windows 2003 RAS - Windows NT ; We have a Windows 2003 RAS server that has been working for a while when it suddenly stops working. When we enable the RAS server using "Routing and Remote Access", RAS clients are able to connect, but clients on LAN ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Problem with Windows 2003 RAS

  1. Problem with Windows 2003 RAS

    We have a Windows 2003 RAS server that has been working for a while when it
    suddenly stops working. When we enable the RAS server using "Routing and
    Remote Access", RAS clients are able to connect, but clients on LAN cannot
    connect or ping the RAS server and vice versa. It displays an unrecognized
    PPP adapter when we do "ipconfig / all" command. The following is how it
    looks like:

    PPP adapter {92F0110B-208B-41E1-9B62-FBB2EEED009D}:
    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    Description . . . . . . . . . . . : WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface
    Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-53-45-00-00-00
    DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
    IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.234.235
    Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :
    NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled

    We suspect that the PPP adapter has something to do with the problem above.
    We have tried several different things (rebooting the server, netsh int ip
    reset, route delete 192.168.234.235, disabling the built in network adapter
    in BIOS) to try to remove the PPP adapter, but none of them works. The
    following is our RAS server IP info:

    IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.X
    Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.X

    Any suggestions or help would really be appreciated.

    TIA,
    Alex



  2. Re: Problem with Windows 2003 RAS


    The PPP adapter is usually a virtual adapter for a VPN connection. Where did
    the 192.168.234 address come from? Since it didn't get it via DHCP, it must
    have been assigned. What connections are showing in Network Properties? Do
    you have a VPN connection to somewhere else on the same box? That's not
    something I'd recommend, altough you can do it (I've done it). It takes some
    manual setup. If you do, you'll probably need to manually set up your
    routing table.

    ....kurt

    "Alex" wrote in message
    news:11i01vhteptfg57@corp.supernews.com...
    > We have a Windows 2003 RAS server that has been working for a while when
    > it
    > suddenly stops working. When we enable the RAS server using "Routing and
    > Remote Access", RAS clients are able to connect, but clients on LAN cannot
    > connect or ping the RAS server and vice versa. It displays an unrecognized
    > PPP adapter when we do "ipconfig / all" command. The following is how it
    > looks like:
    >
    > PPP adapter {92F0110B-208B-41E1-9B62-FBB2EEED009D}:
    > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface
    > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-53-45-00-00-00
    > DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
    > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.234.235
    > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
    > Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :
    > NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled
    >
    > We suspect that the PPP adapter has something to do with the problem
    > above.
    > We have tried several different things (rebooting the server, netsh int ip
    > reset, route delete 192.168.234.235, disabling the built in network
    > adapter
    > in BIOS) to try to remove the PPP adapter, but none of them works. The
    > following is our RAS server IP info:
    >
    > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.X
    > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
    > Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.X
    >
    > Any suggestions or help would really be appreciated.
    >
    > TIA,
    > Alex
    >
    >




+ Reply to Thread