> Would it be possible that the name resolution is pointing to > the wrong server that only has a "data" share on it?
Not possible. The server is definitely correct. > What is your DNS/WINS/Hosts file configuration? DNS is handled by a FreeBSD system. WINS is handled by the same box the users are dialing up to. > I doubt this > is a defect in MS' networking model, almost assuredly a name > resolution issue. DNS has always worked perfectly whether the user has been local or remote. Local users normally have no problems with NetBIOS, but remote ones do. > Can you upgrade your NT4 box in place to > W2K? I think you'd find life a little easier. I don't think that "upgrading the NT4 box W2K" is a sufficent solution -- there's no proof it will work, and it's not the platform that's the problem. I have no plans to upgrade this box to Windows 2000. Any other ideas? :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Smith [mailto:adam.smith@;sageautomation.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:26 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: Dialup Users > > > We have a Windows NT 4.0 PDC which is also our main file > server. We also have a Windows 2000 server which is serving RAS. > > When users dial up and authenticate using RAS, they all try > and connect to our main file server by putting '\\server' > (Don't blame me -- I didn't name it =)) into their Location > bar in Windows Explorer. This is not an issue, as it is a > perfectly valid way of browsing network shares. > > Unfortunately majority of the time, these users can either > NOT resolve the name 'server' or they can only see one or two > shares on that server. Today for example, one user rang me > while dialled up saying he could only see the "Data" share > when he should have been presented with at least four shares. > He was attempting to access a share called "Resources." > > I told the user to map a drive manually, with "net use Z: > \\server\resources." The map was unsuccessful, as the > specified share could not be seen. Running "Net View" > displayed only the "Data" share. > > I then instructed the user to do a "Net View \\192.168.0.2," > and the remote user was presented with *ALL* the shares he > should have seen. He then had to map a drive to the IP > address of the box, rather than its NetBIOS name. All I > could think was "What a joke." > > I've seen this so, so many times, and I find it totally > rediculous. To me, this proves that if I were to write up an > OSI Checklist I'd get the > following: > > DEAD Application > DEAD-ISH? Presentation > :) Session > :) Transport > :) Network > :) Data Link > :) Physical > > if all the rest are working, it *HAS* to be a fault of the > Microsoft Networking model. What else could it be? > > > -- > Adam Smith > Information Technology Officer > SAGE Automation Ltd. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.sageautomation.com > > Phone: (08) 8276 0703 > Fax: (08) 8276 0799 > Mobile: 0414 895 273 > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > *****This email and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and intended solely for the use of the > addressee. If you have received this email in error please > notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any views or opinions > presented in this email are solely those of the author and do > not necessarily represent those of Stainsafe Inc. or any of > its subsidiaries or affiliates. The company accepts no > liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by > this email.***** > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
