Setting up ISA 2006

billybob01

I am struggling with setting up ISA 2006 to replace our old ISA 2000 server and i have a question regarding the route table. Does this have to be the same on both servers?

sprkymrk

ISA 2004/6 no longer have a LAT as defined in ISA 2000. That's about the only difference I can think of at the moment that may cause the route table to look different.

Note: I haven't messed with ISA (any version) in a long time.

billybob01

Thanks for the reply Sprkymrk, it`s been a long time for me as well, i have just upgraded this companies exchange server and thought i would have a crack at the ISA as well!! Doah!

HeroPsycho

billybob01 wrote: »

I am struggling with setting up ISA 2006 to replace our old ISA 2000 server and i have a question regarding the route table. Does this have to be the same on both servers?

In both servers in a single array? In the vast majority of cases, yes, the route table should be the same. I'd say in almost all cases if they're not, you're doing something wrong.

If the servers are not in the same array, then no, they don't have to be the same, but they could be.

The absence of a LAT with ISA2K6 is relevant to the definitions and relationships between networks in the ISA product configuration itself. ISA2K6 supports multinetworking, which means more than two networks can exist and be controlled instead of the Internal network vs External only.

Route tables are important in ISA2K6 in that Network elements are usually defined by grabbing route table entries relevant to the adapter used for that network element.

billybob01

Many thanks for the reply HeroPsycho, just wondering but could you help me out privately on some setup issues i have on ISA?

HeroPsycho

billybob01 wrote: »

Many thanks for the reply HeroPsycho, just wondering but could you help me out privately on some setup issues i have on ISA?

Sure...