Prev: Companyweb: users prompted for credentials
Next: Windows Server 2008, Intel Xenon 7500 series SQL Server 2008?
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 16 Apr 2010 00:03

"Mikey" <texan767(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4dc4b69c-ac55-4f00-aaec-c19139c4614d(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>> Interesting. I would have never thought to look for or think of that. It must have been a rule to the 2003 SBS, correct?
>>
>> Ace
>
>Yep.

Interesting. I wonder what the rule was for. Either way, I'm glad you figured it out!

Ace
From: Mikey on 16 Apr 2010 08:43
On Apr 15, 11:03 pm, "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]"
<ace...(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote:
> "Mikey" <texan...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4dc4b69c-ac55-4f00-aaec-c19139c4614d(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >> Interesting. I would have never thought to look for or think of that. It must have been a rule to the 2003 SBS, correct?
>
> >> Ace
>
> >Yep.
>
> Interesting. I wonder what the rule was for. Either way, I'm glad you figured it out!
>
> Ace

One to one nat, mapping a public IP to a private one.
The private IP address was correct, but since I was not in the office,
public one wasn't.
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 16 Apr 2010 12:13

"Mikey" <texan767(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b2b5fae-1d7a-48a9-8598-708c24b805b3(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

> One to one nat, mapping a public IP to a private one.
> The private IP address was correct, but since I was not in the office,
> public one wasn't.

Thanks for responding. I honestly can't see how that would have caused it. It would appear that it would be a remap rule that simply wouldn't work but not affect anything else, unless I am missing something?

Ace
From: Mikey on 16 Apr 2010 12:47
On Apr 16, 11:13 am, "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]"
<ace...(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote:
> "Mikey" <texan...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3b2b5fae-1d7a-48a9-8598-708c24b805b3(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> > One to one nat, mapping a public IP to a private one.
> > The private IP address was correct, but since I was not in the office,
> > public one wasn't.
>
> Thanks for responding. I honestly can't see how that would have caused it.. It would appear that it would be a remap rule that simply wouldn't work but not affect anything else, unless I am missing something?
>
> Ace

In the one to one nat settings, I have public ip address mapped to the
private, 192.168.x.x, address of this server.
Since I am not at the office, my public ip address wouldn't be the
same as what is currently in the firewall settings - does that make
sense?
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 16 Apr 2010 15:10
> On Apr 16, 11:13�am, "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]"
> <ace...(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote:
>> "Mikey" <texan...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:3b2b5fae-1d7a-48a9-8598-708c24b805b3(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>> One to one nat, mapping a public IP to a private one.
>>> The private IP address was correct, but since I was not in the office,
>>> public one wasn't.
>>
>> Thanks for responding. I honestly can't see how that would have caused it.
>> It would appear that it would be a remap rule that simply wouldn't work but
>> not affect anything else, unless I am missing something?
>>
>> Ace
>
> In the one to one nat settings, I have public ip address mapped to the
> private, 192.168.x.x, address of this server.
> Since I am not at the office, my public ip address wouldn't be the
> same as what is currently in the firewall settings - does that make
> sense?

Yes, that part makes sense, but that would only affect whatever port
was mapped one to one to the server. For example, if I configured a one
to one NAT for port 25 to the server, then it simply wouldn't work if
configured with the wrong external interface to that server. I can't
see how that would affect the SBS not able to get outside. Unless of
course it is a global map?

Ace


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Companyweb: users prompted for credentials
Next: Windows Server 2008, Intel Xenon 7500 series SQL Server 2008?