Correct LAT settings?

We've had a couple ISA messages in Event Viewer that the "routing table has
changed." Situation is dual NIC SBS 2000 w/dynamic DNS and remote clients
dialing in by VPN. Internal network is of the 10.0.0.0 variety, as it was
with SBS 4.5.

Do any of the following current LAT entries look suspicious or unnecessary?
Should any be deleted?

10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.255
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
10.0.0.2 - 10.0.0.2
10.255.255.255 - 10.255.255.255
169.254.0.0 - 169.254.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255

Thanks in advance.

Karan
Tue Jan 25 09:44:32 CST 2005

Hi,

Couple of questions i would like to ask.....wat is the
subnet on External NIC...if subnet on Internal NIC as
metioned is 10.0.0. then delete all entries for other
subnets... u shud not have subnet for external NIC in LAT


>-----Original Message-----
>We've had a couple ISA messages in Event Viewer that
the "routing table has
>changed." Situation is dual NIC SBS 2000 w/dynamic DNS
and remote clients
>dialing in by VPN. Internal network is of the 10.0.0.0
variety, as it was
>with SBS 4.5.
>
>Do any of the following current LAT entries look
suspicious or unnecessary?
>Should any be deleted?
>
>10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.255
>10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>10.0.0.2 - 10.0.0.2
>10.255.255.255 - 10.255.255.255
>169.254.0.0 - 169.254.255.255
>172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
>.
>

Cris
Tue Jan 25 09:43:02 CST 2005

There's nothing "wrong" with it unless you're second nic is also on a
private ip subnet

Keep all the 10 entries and get rid of the rest

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
---------------------------------------
Please reply only to the newsgroup and not to me directly so that everyone
can benefit from the information
"Mark Holoweiko" <mh@stonypoint-pr.com> wrote in message
news:tLSdnUGdd8qB_2vcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> We've had a couple ISA messages in Event Viewer that the "routing table
> has
> changed." Situation is dual NIC SBS 2000 w/dynamic DNS and remote clients
> dialing in by VPN. Internal network is of the 10.0.0.0 variety, as it was
> with SBS 4.5.
>
> Do any of the following current LAT entries look suspicious or
> unnecessary?
> Should any be deleted?
>
> 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.255
> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
> 10.0.0.2 - 10.0.0.2
> 10.255.255.255 - 10.255.255.255
> 169.254.0.0 - 169.254.255.255
> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>

KARAn
Thu Jan 27 16:00:51 CST 2005

hi there,

LAT stans for Local Address Table not External Address
table. I hope this would give you the reason why do we
only have internal subnet not External.

>-----Original Message-----
>There's nothing "wrong" with it unless you're second nic
is also on a
>private ip subnet
>
>Keep all the 10 entries and get rid of the rest
>
>--
>Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
>---------------------------------------
>Please reply only to the newsgroup and not to me
directly so that everyone
>can benefit from the information
>"Mark Holoweiko" <mh@stonypoint-pr.com> wrote in message
>news:tLSdnUGdd8qB_2vcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>> We've had a couple ISA messages in Event Viewer that
the "routing table
>> has
>> changed." Situation is dual NIC SBS 2000 w/dynamic DNS
and remote clients
>> dialing in by VPN. Internal network is of the 10.0.0.0
variety, as it was
>> with SBS 4.5.
>>
>> Do any of the following current LAT entries look
suspicious or
>> unnecessary?
>> Should any be deleted?
>>
>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.255
>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>> 10.0.0.2 - 10.0.0.2
>> 10.255.255.255 - 10.255.255.255
>> 169.254.0.0 - 169.254.255.255
>> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>