Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a Windows 2000 server with two NICs already installed with separate IPs:

  • NIC1:; No gateway
  • NIC2:; Gateway:

NIC2 is for WAN connectivity, and NIC1 is serving local clients.

NIC1 is already serving local clients. Now for a remote site, I want people to come in and access using NIC2.

Can we route all traffic coming in using NIC2 to NIC1, as everything is working with NIC1 locally.

Can this be done using the windows route command?

share|improve this question
Just to clarify: Your software (whatever it is) is bound ONLY to NIC1, and you've got traffic coming in on NIC2 that needs to be serviced by your app? What kind of traffic is it? HTTP? Or something else? – Mark Henderson Mar 23 '11 at 2:57
it's not HTTP. It uses port 5000 to connect to sybase database – user75464 Mar 23 '11 at 3:31
up vote 0 down vote accepted

This is not really an easy problem to solve.

If your application runs over HTTP you can use a Reverse Proxy to do what you want. You set up the Reverse Proxy to listen on and forward all traffic to will then send its traffic back to and (because it's a smart cookie) will send the traffic back to its originator.

The other option is to run NAT on NIC2 and then do a port forward to NIC1

However, we probably need more information about the kind of traffic that you expect to see routed.

share|improve this answer
My application doesn't run over HTTP, it uses port 5000 for communication. Secondly I don't have access to the gateway to make the change. I was thinking if this is solely possible with the windows route command or any other utility that can help.. PLease advise. – user75464 Mar 23 '11 at 3:32
@user75464 - See my update, you can probably do this by running a NAT service on NIC2 and then port-fowarding. But it's not really possible with route add because routing relies on the originator having the proper destination IP address in its headers. – Mark Henderson Mar 23 '11 at 3:36
Thanks for the reply... COuld you please explain this in more details. I guess I'm missing out some information. How do I set up a Nat service for NIC2 on Windows 2000 server. Are you talking about the RRAS service here. What about port forwarding, how can this be done.. Please explain further so that I can try this out and publish the results. – user75464 Mar 23 '11 at 3:41
@user75464 - I've not done port forwarding and NAT in Windows 2000 for a very long time, so I probably can't help you from here, but you're correct that you need to set up RRAS on the box and enable NAT from there. You might want to ask a new question for assistance, as its kind of moved out of the scope of this question. – Mark Henderson Mar 23 '11 at 3:57

It's theoretically possible. You'll have to enable packet forwarding on the 2000 server (one guide available here), and then you'll have to add static routes to the router (and possibly further up) to enable packets coming in to find the 172.14.3.x network.

Dare I ask why you can't just address the requests to

share|improve this answer
I'm assuming that the two NICs are on totally disjointed networks - I've seen similar setups before. But then what needs to happen with packet forwarding like that is that the ORIGINAL packet needs to be addressed to, and the route to that address needs to be followed all the way back to the default gateway at the other end, which is unlikely to happen. – Mark Henderson Mar 23 '11 at 3:01
That's another possibility, yes. Either way, I'm baffled as to what the setup is that is requiring this kind of band-aid. – Hyppy Mar 23 '11 at 3:05
As NIC1 is connected to database, which listens to one ip. I want the traffic from NIC2 (remote site) to be serviced by the database, which has to be routed to NIC1 ( as it has the connection to database). – user75464 Mar 23 '11 at 3:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.