Home » Category » Microsoft Windows 2000/NT/2003

Microsoft Windows 2000/NT/2003: Destination host unreachable

204| Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:06:00 GMT| bud| Comments (3)
I'm installing a new Windows Server 2003 and have run into a problem that I
can't solve. My network consists of 150 PCs running Windows/98. The
previous server was NT running Microsoft Proxy Server V2. We chose to
discontinue the NT server completely and setup the W2k3 server from scratch.
Everything was going perfect (IIS installed and running, Exchange installed
and running, DHCP same and even a new virus detection system) until I tried
to access the internet from a client PC. Our access to the internet is via
DSL (a Cisco router) on a separate subnet. I have 2 network adapters on the
new server and configured one as the internet gateway with its own IP
address. I set the default gateway of it to the DSL router address. The
other adapter is configured without a default gateway. I can access the
internet from the server without any problem when configured like this.
After setting the default gateway in the client to point to the server, I
still couldn't get to the internet from a client PC, I then configured
Windows 2003 Routing and Remote Access Service, uninstalled Proxy server
client on the PC and still couldn't get out - still getting the destination
host unreachable. I can ping the server successfully. I've tried adding
static routes to Routing and Remote Access; enabling IP routing in the
registry; removing the default gateway on the server's port to the router
(can't get to the internet from the server then) and some other things that
didn't make any difference. This should be a simple setup, but I'm stuck
and don't have any good ideas to try even after reading numerous white
papers. Any suggestions would be appreciated and do I even need Routing and
Remote Access? Thanks, Bud

Keywords & Tags: destination, host, unreachable, microsoft, windows 2000, nt, 2003

URL: http://www.msdns.org/windows-2000-nt/60453/
 
«« Prev - Next »» 3 helpful answers below.
Bud wrote:
> I'm installing a new Windows Server 2003 and have run into a problem
> that I can't solve. My network consists of 150 PCs running
> Windows/98. The previous server was NT running Microsoft Proxy
> Server V2. We chose to discontinue the NT server completely and
> setup the W2k3 server from scratch. Everything was going perfect (IIS
> installed and running, Exchange installed and running, DHCP same and
> even a new virus detection system) until I tried to access the
> internet from a client PC. Our access to the internet is via DSL (a
> Cisco router) on a separate subnet. I have 2 network adapters on the
> new server and configured one as the internet gateway with its own IP
> address. I set the default gateway of it to the DSL router address.=20
> The other adapter is configured without a default gateway. I can
> access the internet from the server without any problem when
> configured like this. After setting the default gateway in the client
> to point to the server, I still couldn't get to the internet from a
> client PC, I then configured Windows 2003 Routing and Remote Access
> Service, uninstalled Proxy server client on the PC and still couldn't
> get out - still getting the destination host unreachable. I can ping
> the server successfully. I've tried adding static routes to Routing
> and Remote Access; enabling IP routing in the registry; removing the
> default gateway on the server's port to the router (can't get to the
> internet from the server then) and some other things that didn't
> make any difference. This should be a simple setup, but I'm stuck
> and don't have any good ideas to try even after reading numerous
> white papers. Any suggestions would be appreciated and do I even
> need Routing and Remote Access? Thanks, Bud =20


Do you have routing enabled between the two adapters? I assume they're =
on different networks or segments. The internet-connected adaptor should =
use the DSL router as its default GW, the Win98 machines should use the =
2K3 server as theirs (through DHCP, eventually).

Now does 'route print' show a route between the two adapters' segments? =
If not, look at the (server) registry key =
HKLM/System/CCS/Tcpip/Parameters for a DWORD "IPEnableRouter". If it's =
present and has a value of 0, set it to 1. If absent, create it and =
give it a value of 1. You may have to stop and start TCP, or just =
reboot.

That should be all it takes. For simplicity, do this without having any =
other proxying or added static routes, then add back anything you need.

jimmack | Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:07:00 GMT |

"Jim Mack" <jmack...mdxi.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OfOG%23jjlFHA.3316...TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Bud wrote:
> I'm installing a new Windows Server 2003 and have run into a problem
> that I can't solve. My network consists of 150 PCs running
> Windows/98. The previous server was NT running Microsoft Proxy
> Server V2. We chose to discontinue the NT server completely and
> setup the W2k3 server from scratch. Everything was going perfect (IIS
> installed and running, Exchange installed and running, DHCP same and
> even a new virus detection system) until I tried to access the
> internet from a client PC. Our access to the internet is via DSL (a
> Cisco router) on a separate subnet. I have 2 network adapters on the
> new server and configured one as the internet gateway with its own IP
> address. I set the default gateway of it to the DSL router address.
> The other adapter is configured without a default gateway. I can
> access the internet from the server without any problem when
> configured like this. After setting the default gateway in the client
> to point to the server, I still couldn't get to the internet from a
> client PC, I then configured Windows 2003 Routing and Remote Access
> Service, uninstalled Proxy server client on the PC and still couldn't
> get out - still getting the destination host unreachable. I can ping
> the server successfully. I've tried adding static routes to Routing
> and Remote Access; enabling IP routing in the registry; removing the
> default gateway on the server's port to the router (can't get to the
> internet from the server then) and some other things that didn't
> make any difference. This should be a simple setup, but I'm stuck
> and don't have any good ideas to try even after reading numerous
> white papers. Any suggestions would be appreciated and do I even
> need Routing and Remote Access? Thanks, Bud


Do you have routing enabled between the two adapters? I assume they're on
different networks or segments. The internet-connected adaptor should use
the DSL router as its default GW, the Win98 machines should use the 2K3
server as theirs (through DHCP, eventually).

Now does 'route print' show a route between the two adapters' segments? If
not, look at the (server) registry key HKLM/System/CCS/Tcpip/Parameters for
a DWORD "IPEnableRouter". If it's present and has a value of 0, set it to
1. If absent, create it and give it a value of 1. You may have to stop and
start TCP, or just reboot.

That should be all it takes. For simplicity, do this without having any
other proxying or added static routes, then add back anything you need.

================================================== ==============

I have 4 network adapters on the server, 2 are disabled. The 2 adapters
that are enabled are on different networks. I had partial success by
enabling IPEnableRouter, removing Routing and Remote Access service, adding
it back in, and adding the default gateway into my DHCP setup. Having done
that, I was able to ping an internet site by name and have the IP address
returned only to have the ping fail with a timeout. I kept thinking that
there wasn't a return route established, so I manually added static routes
on the server with no success. I'm ready to go buy a $100 router/firewall
unit and simply my life. I know this should take about 10 minutes to
configure, but I've already spent more like 8 hours and I'm running out of
ideas. Thanks for your suggestion - it got me further.

bud | Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:08:00 GMT |

Bud wrote:
> "Jim Mack" <jmack...mdxi.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OfOG%23jjlFHA.3316...TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Bud wrote:
> =

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> I have 4 network adapters on the server, 2 are disabled. The 2
> adapters that are enabled are on different networks. I had partial
> success by enabling IPEnableRouter, removing Routing and Remote
> Access service, adding it back in, and adding the default gateway
> into my DHCP setup. Having done that, I was able to ping an internet
> site by name and have the IP address returned only to have the ping
> fail with a timeout. I kept thinking that there wasn't a return
> route established, so I manually added static routes on the server
> with no success. I'm ready to go buy a $100 router/firewall unit and
> simply my life. I know this should take about 10 minutes to
> configure, but I've already spent more like 8 hours and I'm running
> out of ideas. Thanks for your suggestion - it got me further.=20


Don't forget that lots of hosts have ICMP echo disabled as a security =
measure -- you can connect, but you won't be able to ping them. Try a =
site that you know for sure doesn't eat pings, like yahoo.com. Or try a =
tracert instead -- if you get past the first two hops you know it isn't =
a routing problem.

Post your route table (netstat -nr), disguising any public addresses in =
a consistent manner so we can see what's going on. You do not need RRAS =
for what you've described so far.

I would never argue against a separate little router. They're cheap and =
effective. But this should also be solvable.
--=20
Jim

jimmack | Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:09:00 GMT |

Microsoft Windows 2000/NT/2003 Hot Answers

Microsoft Windows 2000/NT/2003 New questions

Microsoft Windows 2000/NT/2003 Related Categories