no internet on client

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

restarted my server (2k3)

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Cheeks...

Could you be a little less specific?

 

i sorted that problem.
anyway, i have the server DHCP role assigned and all is good, however, when i do ipconfig /all it says DHCP enabled No

why?

 

I think you're probably getting confused - I presume you've set a static IP for the server itself, but have set it up AS a DHCP server (i.e. assigning addresses to clients on the LAN using DHCP).

The message you're getting back indicates that the server isn't a DHCP client, not that it isn't acting as a DHCP server

HTH

 

oh... cheers for that...

 

Im struggling to find the GPO editor for Domain Computer Policy, if i type in gpedit. in run box, i get it for the Local., and im after the domain, i tried windows web site and totally

 

Go to AD Users & Computers (Start, Programs, Admin Tools), then select the appropriate container (in your case, this would probably be 'Computers', since it doesn't seem like you've created any Machine OUs)

 

Doh!

Reading back - I could have made that post a bit clearer - sorry Cheeks, if you spent half an hour scratching your head after reading my reply

Out of interest Sparky, do you support any law enforcement clients? I'm in the middle of an AD Migration at the moment and, whilst I'm not the project manager, I'm being expected to come up with a decent OU structure that represents our organisation and allows us to be as granular as possible when it comes to GPOs, whilst maintaining a decent level of simplicity (there's an oxymoron in that statement somewhere...)

Best i can come up with so far is a traditional OU structure based on job function (HR, Estates, Finance, various Police departments etc), together with some machine OUs for each O/S (mixture of NT, 2000 & XP). Its a nightmare trying to manouevre myself into a position where I can state with any authority that we will be able to get acceptance at board level - seemingly every day more 'special requirements' (ahem) come crawling out the woodwork which, if I were to take seriously, would lead to us having about 400 separate OUs for a 3000 machine estate...

Just wonder if you (or anyone else for that matter) can point me to a decent model of OU design for law enforcement. I'm currently looking at the O'Reilly book on AD, which has an interesting design that I'm attempting to adapt (OK, 'steal' would probably be more appropriate) as it incorporates most of what I need.

 

Zeb - i did understand what you said, and Sparky - already got that... it seems that whatever i try and "lock down" only applys to the server machine, and not going across the domain on to my client..

 

Cheers for the shout back

I had thought of having a flatter structure, but the job functions of the various 'long arms of the law' are markedly different and require distinct segregation. The easiest way to do this is by creating OUs by job function. In addition, we'[ve got lots of staff that need to be able to hot-desk, complicating the issue a bit further, and of course, the ever-present 'kiosk' type machines that need to be locked down tightly as they are in 'public' areas.

The O'Reilly book I mentioned earlier really has been a godsend - I've never designed an OU structure for an organisation this size before (100-odd sites, 5,000+ users) so it really was a great stroke of luck to find a model that matches our needs pretty closely. For anyone else stuck in this situation I'd recommend it highly.

 

Code:

Microsoft (R) Windows (R) 2000 Operating System Group Policy Result tool
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp. 1981-1999


Created on 12 May 2007 at 15:35:25


Operating System Information:

Operating System Type:		Professional
Operating System Version:	5.0.2195.Service Pack 4
Terminal Server Mode:		Not supported

###############################################################

  User Group Policy results for:

  

  Domain Name:		CHEEKS
  Domain Type:		Windows 2000
  Site Name:		Default-First-Site

  Roaming profile:	(None)
  Local profile:	C:\Documents and Settings\user

  The user is a member of the following security groups:

	CHEEKS\Domain Users
	\Everyone
	BUILTIN\Users
	NT AUTHORITY\INTERACTIVE
	NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users
	\LOCAL


###############################################################

Last time Group Policy was applied: 10 May 2007 at 22:02:39



###############################################################

  Computer Group Policy results for:

  

  Domain Name:		CHEEKS
  Domain Type:		Windows 2000
  Site Name:		Default-First-Site


  The computer is a member of the following security groups:

	BUILTIN\Administrators
	\Everyone
	BUILTIN\Users
	NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK
	NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users
	CHEEKS\WIN2K-VMWARE$
	CHEEKS\Domain Computers

###############################################################

Last time Group Policy was applied: 10 May 2007 at 21:43:33
Group Policy was applied from: win2k3-vmware.cheeks.local


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


The computer received "Registry" settings from these GPOs:

	Local Group Policy
	Default Domain Policy


===============================================================
The computer received "Security" settings from these GPOs:

	Local Group Policy
	Default Domain Policy


===============================================================
The computer received "EFS recovery" settings from these GPOs:

	Local Group Policy
	Default Domain Policy

im sure this is why i stopped messing with this before?