I have hosts 192.168.1.yyy which:
- I can open locally OR over a site-to-site VPN using Run \\192.168.1.yyy

And,
I have two hosts 192.168.1.xxx which:
- I can open locally using Run \\192.168.1.xxx
but
- I can't open over the VPN. Trying generates the error:
"The network path was not found"

I'm trying to figure out why in the world these particular xxx hosts are
only accessible locally. They happen to be on the same cable / switch / hub
from a more central switch - for whatever that might suggest... ?

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Fred

On Sep 30, 4:50*pm, "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>
wrote:
> I have hosts 192.168.1.yyy which:
> - I can open locally OR over a site-to-site VPN using Run \\192.168.1.yyy
>
> And,
> I have two hosts 192.168.1.xxx which:
> - I can open locally using Run \\192.168.1.xxx
> but
> - I can't open over the VPN. *Trying generates the error:
> "The network path was not found"
>
> I'm trying to figure out why in the world these particular xxx hosts are
> only accessible locally. *They happen to be on the same cable / switch / hub
> from a more central switch - for whatever that might suggest... ?
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Fred

VPNs do not like "bridging" networks (192.168.1.xxx - 192.168.1.yyy),
You will need to set up two subnets (192.168.1.xxx - 192,168.2.yyy)
for VPN functions to work correctly.

smlunatick wrote:
> On Sep 30, 4:50 pm, "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>
> wrote:

>
> VPNs do not like "bridging" networks (192.168.1.xxx - 192.168.1.yyy),
> You will need to set up two subnets (192.168.1.xxx - 192,168.2.yyy)
> for VPN functions to work correctly.

I should have mentioned that these *are* on separate subnets:

192.168.1.128 255.255.255.224
and
192.168.1.192 255.255.255.192

On Sep 30, 6:46*pm, "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>
wrote:
> smlunatick wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 4:50 pm, "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > VPNs do not like "bridging" networks (192.168.1.xxx - 192.168.1.yyy),
> > You will need to set up two subnets (192.168.1.xxx - 192,168.2.yyy)
> > for VPN functions to work correctly.
>
> I should have mentioned that these *are* on separate subnets:
>
> 192.168.1.128 255.255.255.224
> and
> 192.168.1.192 255.255.255.192

Subnets are the same. You subnet IP are the same (192.168.1.xxx) on
both segments. You need to change one.

smlunatick <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8715fb59-9b81-4b80-a308-c30e3304d72f@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
m:

> On Sep 30, 6:46*pm, "Fred Marshall"
> <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:
>> smlunatick wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 4:50 pm, "Fred Marshall"
>>> <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> VPNs do not like "bridging" networks (192.168.1.xxx -
>>> 192.168.1.yyy), You will need to set up two subnets
>>> (192.168.1.xxx - 192,168.2.yyy) for VPN functions to work
>>> correctly.
>>
>> I should have mentioned that these *are* on separate subnets:
>>
>> 192.168.1.128 255.255.255.224 and 192.168.1.192 255.255.255.192
>
> Subnets are the same. You subnet IP are the same (192.168.1.xxx)
> on both segments. You need to change one.

With the subnet masks as specified, they are different subnets. One
subnet is 192.168.1.129 thru .158 and the other is 192.168.1.193 thru
..254. (Not all subnets have the subnet mask of 255.255.255.0).

What would be helpful here is the output of a
route print
command with the VPN connected.

-- John

John Wunderlich wrote:
> smlunatick <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:8715fb59-9b81-4b80-a308-c30e3304d72f@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
>> On Sep 30, 6:46 pm, "Fred Marshall"
>> <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:
>>> smlunatick wrote:
>>>> On Sep 30, 4:50 pm, "Fred Marshall"
>>>> <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> VPNs do not like "bridging" networks (192.168.1.xxx -
>>>> 192.168.1.yyy), You will need to set up two subnets
>>>> (192.168.1.xxx - 192,168.2.yyy) for VPN functions to work
>>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> I should have mentioned that these *are* on separate subnets:
>>>
>>> 192.168.1.128 255.255.255.224 and 192.168.1.192 255.255.255.192
>>
>> Subnets are the same. You subnet IP are the same (192.168.1.xxx)
>> on both segments. You need to change one.
>
> With the subnet masks as specified, they are different subnets. One
> subnet is 192.168.1.129 thru .158 and the other is 192.168.1.193 thru
> .254. (Not all subnets have the subnet mask of 255.255.255.0).
>
> What would be helpful here is the output of a
> route print
> command with the VPN connected.
>
> -- John

Thanks John.

The route print is going to look the same with or without the VPN connected.
Well, it might not if one is using persistent routes on all the hosts.
As it stands, the route to the VPN is dealt with in the LAN gateway/router.

I found the problem:

Whereas most computers are using the same commercial internet security
suite, at least two of the problem computers were using the Windows
firewall. It needed to be told of the other subnet.

Now I'm down to 1 computer and suspect the firewall although it's the same
as on most other computers - all of which map just fine.

Fred