ChrissySC

Honorable
Apr 14, 2012
3
0
10,510
Well, I am perplexed. Let's see what I am missing, which I think might be configuring some sort of routing via the router or the server.

Server 2003
(changing the addressing for safety)
I have the Buffalo NAS Linkstation, x.x.1.6
Server x.x.1.5
Server and NAS are router x.x.1.1
Router to branch x.x.1.3 - VPN always connected and live

I can get to the server and see shared drives via tsclient if they are mapped on the server.

I want to directly go to the NAS without having to stop at the server.

How in the world? I can reason that I should somehow route via the server, but this is far beyond anything that I remember. I can get to the server from the branch without any problems, but I need to go directly to the NAS without any web interface so that I can map network drives and grab items for redundancy purposes and sharing.

Let me have your best. :)
 

tokencode

Distinguished
Dec 25, 2010
847
1
19,060
Are you using something L2TP to tunnel layer 2 (ethernet) over the VPN? Your addressing looks like you a single network spanning 2 locations.

That aside do you have your default gateway set correctly on the NAS? That could cause it to only function on the local network. Check your default gateway and subnet mask on the NAS first. See if you can ping the NAS from the remote site if you have ICMP enabled.
 

ChrissySC

Honorable
Apr 14, 2012
3
0
10,510
I'll check that today. UDP is enabled on the router. I want the access on the local network more than anything. Using encryption on the IPsec, not SSL, worth noting.

I suppose this is where my ignorance comes in to play. I am a programmer. :)

The gateway should be that of the first VPN, or so I thought. Should I be using the public gateway and DNS? The branches have statics. I suppose this won't be a problem once I manage all of the VPNs on one router, but the theory behind the problem does not make sense to me.

The router/gateway should function as the DNS too. Could it be that the other routers that tunnel to the office require tunnels amonst themselves to VPN1, i.e. VPN2 tunnel to VPN1? I thought that setting VPN1 to handle all IP addressing should have resolved the need for that.

Hmmm ....