PPP applications trump LAN default gateway

[Ping]

Hello,
I have a PPP dialer application that hoses my LAN NIC
default gateway once it is dialed up.

My LAN NIC's config is:
ip: 192.168.16.20
sm: 255.255.255.0
default gateway: 192.168.16.3

Once I use the modem to dialup, the PPP\SLIP config is:
ip: 192.168.1.205
sm: 255.255.255.0
default gateway: 192.168.1.20

Upon PPP dialup, my NIC card is no longer able to send
packets thru the NIC.
I added a static route on my NIC to point to my NIC
default gateway using "route add -p", but it still doesn't
work.

When I try to traceroute an internal lan ip address, the
PPP DNS servers try to resolve the address.
Any suggestions?
Thanks.

 

[Bill Grant]

The default action when you create a PPP connection is this. The
existing default route is effectively disabled by increasing its metric, and
a new default route is set up to the PPP server. You can prevent this from
happening by clearing the "Use default gateway.." box in the client's
connection properties.

 

[Ping]

Thanks for the reply.
We have effectively cleared the "use default gateway"
option in the client connection properties.

No luck.

We have entered a static ip adddress in the client's NIC
properties.

 

[Bill Grant]

On re-reading your original post, it loks more like a name resolution
problem than a routing problem. Do you have the correct DNS suffix defined
for each connection? Your NIC should have your local DNS suffix configurd,
your PPP connection should have the DNS suffix for the remote location. Does
the PPP connection receive the correct DNS address for the remote DNS
server?

 

[Ping]

The DNS suffix is staticlly entered into the LAN
connection properties pointing to our internal DNS.

The PPP client gets it's own DNS properties automatically
assigned via their DHCP server.

I removed the "Use default gateway on remote network"
under the PPP connection properties, however it doesn't
seem to work. I was thinking about using a WinXP machine
to see if that version of TCP\IP is any better-behaving
than the W2K version.

Thanks.