jeffsteffy
asked on
sonicwall vpn cleint 3.0
I have one user that has a laptop at home using XP home he connects to my network from home using the sonicwall VPN client 3.0. sonicwall show him connected on VPN page and in logs. he get a 192.168.0.x IP which is correct.
he can not ping anything on LAN can not remote desktop into any PC on the LAN
thanks for any help
he can not ping anything on LAN can not remote desktop into any PC on the LAN
thanks for any help
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
also have two site to site VPN tunnels up and running
I suppose he could be running a software or hardware firewall blocking the ESP port. I suggest exporting the connection RCF from a working laptop and asking the user to import this into the client and defacto replace his existing connection document. That way you can exclude any client config issue and focus on networking issue.
Check what software firewall he has got as this is more likely to cause this as a NAT router...
hth
Check what software firewall he has got as this is more likely to cause this as a NAT router...
hth
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I'll have him chech his settings at home tonight and post back tomorrow. thanks
It will be easier to change the subnet at his end for obvious reasons if this is the cause.
Likely theta you have .1.1 or .0.1 and his is the same, just ask him to change the DHCP range on his Router to be .2.x or above.
hth
Likely theta you have .1.1 or .0.1 and his is the same, just ask him to change the DHCP range on his Router to be .2.x or above.
hth
sorry of course you have .0.1, dummy me not reading the question again...so check he has different to .0.1 else change it.
All the best
All the best
ASKER
i agree we will change it at his home. his Qwest modem must be handing out a 192.168.0.x IP He had same problem on another home PC...i will update the status tomorrow
thanks
thanks
ASKER
when he does a ipconfig /all it does not show the gateway...why
What are the rest of the settings?
>>when he does a ipconfig /all it does not show the gateway...why
can you paste the entire output of ipcnofig /all; so we can look at the settings. Also, are you talking about gateway is missing for virtual adapter?
Thank you.
can you paste the entire output of ipcnofig /all; so we can look at the settings. Also, are you talking about gateway is missing for virtual adapter?
Thank you.
ASKER
yes, his home subnet is the same as this network can i set his Ip address to a differnet range leaving the gateway as 192.168.0.1 which is his qwest modem?
Hi
You need to set his whole IP scope to a different subnet.
Set the modem to 192.168.2.1 and configure the LAN from here. If the modem acts as a DHCP server allow the clients to obtain the scope from the DHCP, if not set static IPs.
He would not be able to have a 2.1 subnet and route via 0.1 gw. But it will not make adifference to his network changing the subnet altogether bar he being able to use the Sonicwall VPN
Job done, let us know if you are having trouble.
atb
You need to set his whole IP scope to a different subnet.
Set the modem to 192.168.2.1 and configure the LAN from here. If the modem acts as a DHCP server allow the clients to obtain the scope from the DHCP, if not set static IPs.
He would not be able to have a 2.1 subnet and route via 0.1 gw. But it will not make adifference to his network changing the subnet altogether bar he being able to use the Sonicwall VPN
Job done, let us know if you are having trouble.
atb
ASKER
thanks for the help
Hi jeffsteffy,
I don't think that my solution assisted but think that it is the actual solution; not denying the fact that captainreiss responded to your replies before I could do so.
I would say rather than assisted it would be better to do point split.
What you think!
Thank you.
I don't think that my solution assisted but think that it is the actual solution; not denying the fact that captainreiss responded to your replies before I could do so.
I would say rather than assisted it would be better to do point split.
What you think!
Thank you.
Hi dpk_wal
did not mean to step on your toes, just happened to be online when he posted.
Very happy with point split.
jeffsteffy, could you expand on why you chose the first post as answer?
atb
did not mean to step on your toes, just happened to be online when he posted.
Very happy with point split.
jeffsteffy, could you expand on why you chose the first post as answer?
atb
No issue with you posting captainreiss, I would have preferred a fairer split so wrote earlier; any updates jeffsteffy!
ASKER