rcounts
asked on
Using a multihomed Win98SE box as a router between wired & wireless networks
I've got what I hope will be an interesting question for the experts.
I have a wireless network in my home with a SpeedStream WAP/router with 3 wired ports and built-in DHCP wired to my desktop Win98 box in the family room and also to my broadband "cable modem", and a couple of notebooks with PCMCIA wireless cards. I have a shop building 50-60 feet away from my WAP where I store all my computer "junk" (my wife's term) and spend my spare time working on (or playing with - depending on who you ask) computers.
In the shop I have a 98SE desktop box with an integrated NIC. This is connected to various other computers through a 5 port 10baseT hub. I bought a USB wireless adapter, installed it on the shop computer and got it to hook up to the wireless network in the house - so far so good. It also connects just fine to the wired network in the shop.
Now I am trying to configure the 98SE desktop box out in the shop to route between the computers on the wireless network in the house and the wired network in the shop. I've read what I could find on the subject and added "EnableRouting=1" in the HKLM\.....\Vxd\MSTCP registry key and that looked like it would work (a check mark appeared in the "IP Routing Enabled" checkbox when I run Winipcfg.exe) but I still couldn't ping from one network to the other. I also assigned static IPs for both NICs (I understand this is a requirement for IP forwarding to work, right? If not just let me know - I'd rather use DHCP for the wireless USB adapter) in the Network TCP/IP properties as outlined below
Wired NIC
IP 169.254.225.134
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
Gateway NONE
USB Wireless Adapter
IP 192.168.254.40
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.254.254 (WAP's IP)
At this point I still couldn't access the wireless network or the internet from the wired network, and I couldn't access the wired network from any of the PCs on the wireless network either. I still couldn't even ping between the networks - and I thought I should have been able to with IP forwarding enabled. Next I tried executing the following two commands
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.40
route add 192.168.254.0 mask 255.255.255.0 169.254.225.134
But that didn't seem to help either. Next I ran the Win98SE Internet Connection Sharing Wizard and pointed it at the Wireless USB Adapter as the NIC connected to the internet. Still no dice.
What am I doing wrong here, and/or what else do I need to do?
Looking forward to your answers.........
Thanks,
Bob
I have a wireless network in my home with a SpeedStream WAP/router with 3 wired ports and built-in DHCP wired to my desktop Win98 box in the family room and also to my broadband "cable modem", and a couple of notebooks with PCMCIA wireless cards. I have a shop building 50-60 feet away from my WAP where I store all my computer "junk" (my wife's term) and spend my spare time working on (or playing with - depending on who you ask) computers.
In the shop I have a 98SE desktop box with an integrated NIC. This is connected to various other computers through a 5 port 10baseT hub. I bought a USB wireless adapter, installed it on the shop computer and got it to hook up to the wireless network in the house - so far so good. It also connects just fine to the wired network in the shop.
Now I am trying to configure the 98SE desktop box out in the shop to route between the computers on the wireless network in the house and the wired network in the shop. I've read what I could find on the subject and added "EnableRouting=1" in the HKLM\.....\Vxd\MSTCP registry key and that looked like it would work (a check mark appeared in the "IP Routing Enabled" checkbox when I run Winipcfg.exe) but I still couldn't ping from one network to the other. I also assigned static IPs for both NICs (I understand this is a requirement for IP forwarding to work, right? If not just let me know - I'd rather use DHCP for the wireless USB adapter) in the Network TCP/IP properties as outlined below
Wired NIC
IP 169.254.225.134
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
Gateway NONE
USB Wireless Adapter
IP 192.168.254.40
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.254.254 (WAP's IP)
At this point I still couldn't access the wireless network or the internet from the wired network, and I couldn't access the wired network from any of the PCs on the wireless network either. I still couldn't even ping between the networks - and I thought I should have been able to with IP forwarding enabled. Next I tried executing the following two commands
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.40
route add 192.168.254.0 mask 255.255.255.0 169.254.225.134
But that didn't seem to help either. Next I ran the Win98SE Internet Connection Sharing Wizard and pointed it at the Wireless USB Adapter as the NIC connected to the internet. Still no dice.
What am I doing wrong here, and/or what else do I need to do?
Looking forward to your answers.........
Thanks,
Bob
ASKER
stevenlewis
First, a correction: The Win98SE box in the shop was assigned 192.168.254.42 (not ...40 as previously stated)
In answer to your questions;
I'm only looking for basic routing between the two networks. From what I've read 98SE is supposed to work OK for this and I don't have a copy of w2k or xp and don't want to buy either of them. If I was looking to spend that kind of money there are hardware solutions that would be cheaper.
You're right - the ICS Wizard changed the TCP/IP settings for the USB Wireless Adapter back to DHCP and the Wired NIC to 169.254.0.1 PLUS it added 192.168.254.254 (the WAP) as its default gateway. I changed all of this back to the previous settings (except for the gateway - I left it alone)
Yes I'm pinging by IP
The first Route Add command
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.42
is returning a "route add failed : 87"
I put the route additions into a batch file which I can/will add to the startup folder or the autoexec.bat file once it is working correctly
Here are the results of running Tracert from the wireless side
Tracing route to 169.254.225.134 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 192.168.254.254
2 24 ms 17 ms 22 ms 12-208-150-1.client.attbi.
3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 12.244.82.129
4 12.244.72.18 reports: Destination host unreachable.
Trace complete.
Here are the results of running Route Print from the Win98SE box out in the shop (after running my route add commands)
Active Routes:
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.254.254 192.168.225.134 1
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.254.254 192.168.254.42 1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
169.254.225.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.42 192.168.254.42 1
192.168.225.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.225.134 192.168.225.134 1
192.168.225.134 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.225.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.225.134 192.168.225.134 1
192.168.254.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.42 192.168.254.42 1
192.168.254.42 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.254.42 192.168.254.42 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.225.134 192.168.225.134 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.254.42 0.0.0.0 1
BTW, before installing ICS I could see two workgroups - both with the same name - in network neighborhood from all systems on the wireless side including the 98SE box in the shop. One workgroup contained just the 98SE box, the other contained all the other systems on the wireless network. Now I can only browse one of the two workgroups. On the 98SE box I can only open the one with it's icon in it. When I try to browse the other one I get a long pause and then it says the workgroup is unavailalable. From the wireless side its just the opposite. I can browse the workgroup with all the other wireless systems OK - though the 98SE box doesn't show up, and when I try to open the other workgroup I get the long pause and the error.
This is getting stranger by the minute..........
Bob
First, a correction: The Win98SE box in the shop was assigned 192.168.254.42 (not ...40 as previously stated)
In answer to your questions;
I'm only looking for basic routing between the two networks. From what I've read 98SE is supposed to work OK for this and I don't have a copy of w2k or xp and don't want to buy either of them. If I was looking to spend that kind of money there are hardware solutions that would be cheaper.
You're right - the ICS Wizard changed the TCP/IP settings for the USB Wireless Adapter back to DHCP and the Wired NIC to 169.254.0.1 PLUS it added 192.168.254.254 (the WAP) as its default gateway. I changed all of this back to the previous settings (except for the gateway - I left it alone)
Yes I'm pinging by IP
The first Route Add command
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.42
is returning a "route add failed : 87"
I put the route additions into a batch file which I can/will add to the startup folder or the autoexec.bat file once it is working correctly
Here are the results of running Tracert from the wireless side
Tracing route to 169.254.225.134 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 192.168.254.254
2 24 ms 17 ms 22 ms 12-208-150-1.client.attbi.
3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 12.244.82.129
4 12.244.72.18 reports: Destination host unreachable.
Trace complete.
Here are the results of running Route Print from the Win98SE box out in the shop (after running my route add commands)
Active Routes:
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.254.254 192.168.225.134 1
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.254.254 192.168.254.42 1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
169.254.225.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.42 192.168.254.42 1
192.168.225.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.225.134 192.168.225.134 1
192.168.225.134 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.225.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.225.134 192.168.225.134 1
192.168.254.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.42 192.168.254.42 1
192.168.254.42 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.254.42 192.168.254.42 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.225.134 192.168.225.134 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.254.42 0.0.0.0 1
BTW, before installing ICS I could see two workgroups - both with the same name - in network neighborhood from all systems on the wireless side including the 98SE box in the shop. One workgroup contained just the 98SE box, the other contained all the other systems on the wireless network. Now I can only browse one of the two workgroups. On the 98SE box I can only open the one with it's icon in it. When I try to browse the other one I get a long pause and then it says the workgroup is unavailalable. From the wireless side its just the opposite. I can browse the workgroup with all the other wireless systems OK - though the 98SE box doesn't show up, and when I try to open the other workgroup I get the long pause and the error.
This is getting stranger by the minute..........
Bob
Invalid MASK generates an error, that is when (DEST & MASK) != DEST.
Example> route ADD 157.0.0.0 MASK 155.0.0.0 157.55.80.1
The route addition failed: 87
try
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.254.42
Example> route ADD 157.0.0.0 MASK 155.0.0.0 157.55.80.1
The route addition failed: 87
try
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.254.42
ASKER
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciated your help on this. So, please don't take this as a criticism, just an observation; I've noticed that you quote from the MKB a lot. A good resource for all things Micorosoft to be sure. However, not always the clearest source of info in the world. You see, I've already read the little blurb you quoted and somehow didn't quite understand it (remember in my original post I said that I had read everything I could find on doing this).
If the subnet mask is applied to the network portion of the IP address as a bit-wise ANDing operation, doesn't 169.254.225.0 when ANDed to the mask of 255.255.255.0 = 169.254.225.0, since 255.255.255.0 (in binary) is all 1's in the first 3 octets?
How does applying a subnet mask that doesn't match the ACTUAL subnet mask of the subnet in question help/work? Also, why doesn't the second route add command return the same error? It too has a zero in the last octet of both the address and the mask.
I'm not disputing your answer or even questioning the validity of it - I'm certainly going to give it a try - even if I don't "get it". However, I'm asking for more explanation so that I (hopefully) will "get it" and not make similar errors in the future.
In other words, I'm trying to learn from my mistakes as well as get answers that work :-)
Thanks again,
Bob
If the subnet mask is applied to the network portion of the IP address as a bit-wise ANDing operation, doesn't 169.254.225.0 when ANDed to the mask of 255.255.255.0 = 169.254.225.0, since 255.255.255.0 (in binary) is all 1's in the first 3 octets?
How does applying a subnet mask that doesn't match the ACTUAL subnet mask of the subnet in question help/work? Also, why doesn't the second route add command return the same error? It too has a zero in the last octet of both the address and the mask.
I'm not disputing your answer or even questioning the validity of it - I'm certainly going to give it a try - even if I don't "get it". However, I'm asking for more explanation so that I (hopefully) will "get it" and not make similar errors in the future.
In other words, I'm trying to learn from my mistakes as well as get answers that work :-)
Thanks again,
Bob
ASKER
I tried changing the first route command to
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.254.42
per your suggestion, but still get the same
The route addition failed 87
error message
Bob
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.254.42
per your suggestion, but still get the same
The route addition failed 87
error message
Bob
that little blurb I posted was from
route /? run from a prompt
now while you can use custom subnet masks and supernetting
route add doesn't neccessarily support them, so use the default for the route add
a class b network, class b default subnet
route /? run from a prompt
now while you can use custom subnet masks and supernetting
route add doesn't neccessarily support them, so use the default for the route add
a class b network, class b default subnet
ASKER
I tried changing the first route command to
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.254.42
per your suggestion, but still get the same
The route addition failed 87
error message
Bob
route add 169.254.225.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.254.42
per your suggestion, but still get the same
The route addition failed 87
error message
Bob
ASKER
Oh, yeah, you're right, it does show up when you question the syntax of the command, though I first read it in the MSKB. Anyway, changing the mask to the class b subnet default didn't work either. BTW, now I can only see one workgroup from the 98SE box - the one that contains that system and no others. From the other wireless systems I can still see two workgroups and browse the one containing all the systems EXCEPT the 98SE box. Trying to browse the one with the 98SE box just causes Explorer to lock up.
It just keeps getting weirder.........
It just keeps getting weirder.........
ASKER
I have a copy of NT4.0 workstation, maybe I'd be better off installing that instead of 98SE......
Got an opinion on that?
Got an opinion on that?
unfortunately NT doesn't support usb :~(
ASKER
Oh, yeah, that's right.......
Any other ideas/suggestions?
Any other ideas/suggestions?
here is a router on a floppy (linux)
http://www.freesco.org/
http://www.freesco.org/overview.shtml
not sure if it will support usb or not
the trick is to get the route add to add with out an error
http://www.freesco.org/
http://www.freesco.org/overview.shtml
not sure if it will support usb or not
the trick is to get the route add to add with out an error
ASKER
Actually I discovered a typo in the route add command that was causing the error. I fixed the typo and then changed the mask back to 255.255.255.0 and now it executes with no errors. the routing still doesn't work, but the commands execute without error - a form of progress I guess.......
Ah yes, the old typo LOL
Since w98 does not have persistant routes you will have to do this on every reboot, but now that we have the route added, lets do the tracert again
Since w98 does not have persistant routes you will have to do this on every reboot, but now that we have the route added, lets do the tracert again
ASKER
I think I have a better idea. Let's start from scratch. I've removed the EnableRouting=1 registry hack, removed TCP/IP and uninstalled all adapters from the network control panel.
I've done a fresh re-install of both adapters and TCP/IP with the DHCP (default) settings for both of them. They are now working on their respective networks. The DHCP-assigned settings for them are
Wired Adapter
Address 169.254.1.1
Subnet 255.255.0.0
Gateway NONE
Wireless Adapter
Address 192.168.254.36
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.254.254 (WAP's address)
At this point I'd like to turn it over to you for step-by-step instructions on how you would proceed if you were attempting to do this for yourself or your client (without W2k or XP)?
Bob
I've done a fresh re-install of both adapters and TCP/IP with the DHCP (default) settings for both of them. They are now working on their respective networks. The DHCP-assigned settings for them are
Wired Adapter
Address 169.254.1.1
Subnet 255.255.0.0
Gateway NONE
Wireless Adapter
Address 192.168.254.36
Subnet 255.255.255.0
Gateway 192.168.254.254 (WAP's address)
At this point I'd like to turn it over to you for step-by-step instructions on how you would proceed if you were attempting to do this for yourself or your client (without W2k or XP)?
Bob
OK, but before I start, I'm wondering about the 169.254 ip range
this is the APIPA range, and makes it very dificult to tell what's going on
does the speedstream require this range? if we can change that it will make things easier
what I mean by apipa is automatic private ip address (windows will assign an address in this range when it can't find a dhcp server)
this is the APIPA range, and makes it very dificult to tell what's going on
does the speedstream require this range? if we can change that it will make things easier
what I mean by apipa is automatic private ip address (windows will assign an address in this range when it can't find a dhcp server)
ASKER
I'm sorry but you seem to be a bit confused. The SpeedStream isn't in the APIPA range - it is in the 192.168.254.x range - based on the configured scope of the DCHP built into the WAP.
It is the wired side that is using the 169.254.x.x range - precisely BECAUSE it is being sssigned by Windows APIPA function. It is configured for DHCP but there is no DHCP server on the wired side of the network. Hence the address in the APIPA range.
Of course there is no reason that it has to stay that way - other than it would be nice for all of the PCs on the wired side to be able to use APIPA. That way I won't have to configure a DHCP server or try to keep track of manually-assigned IPs since the computers on the wired side will change more frequently than on the wireless side.
Bob
It is the wired side that is using the 169.254.x.x range - precisely BECAUSE it is being sssigned by Windows APIPA function. It is configured for DHCP but there is no DHCP server on the wired side of the network. Hence the address in the APIPA range.
Of course there is no reason that it has to stay that way - other than it would be nice for all of the PCs on the wired side to be able to use APIPA. That way I won't have to configure a DHCP server or try to keep track of manually-assigned IPs since the computers on the wired side will change more frequently than on the wireless side.
Bob
OK, I think I see
the way I wold do it would be to install ICS on the 98 box with the wireless and wired, choose the wireless connection as the connection to the internet
this would install a dhcp server on the 98 box (no configuration needed), and put the ip info for the wired NIC to
192.168.0.1
mask 255.255.255.0
gateway would be blank
dns and wins would be disabled (for the NIC) (this would be done by default, again no configuration needed, ICS will do this)
then set the other wired machines to recieve the ip info automatically
the packets will then be routed from the wired network to the wireless, and then out the cable modem
the way I wold do it would be to install ICS on the 98 box with the wireless and wired, choose the wireless connection as the connection to the internet
this would install a dhcp server on the 98 box (no configuration needed), and put the ip info for the wired NIC to
192.168.0.1
mask 255.255.255.0
gateway would be blank
dns and wins would be disabled (for the NIC) (this would be done by default, again no configuration needed, ICS will do this)
then set the other wired machines to recieve the ip info automatically
the packets will then be routed from the wired network to the wireless, and then out the cable modem
ASKER
Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to get back to you on this. I've been in bed sick with the flu - or whatever it is that's going around.
My only question about this is the part about ICS setting up a DHCP "server" on the wired side of the network using the 192.168.x.x IP range with the 255.255.255.0 subnet mask. What is the scope of the ICS's DHCP "server"? Is it limited to the 192.168.0.x IP address range?
I'm concerned because my WAP's DHCP is set up to use the 192.168.254.x range with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. So, I want to make sure that the DHCP "server" that ICS will set up on the 98 box isn't going to try to assign addresses in the 192.168.254.x range to the WIRED side of the network.
Is this going to be a problem? If so, is it possible to restrict the ICS's DHCP "server" scope so that there is no overlap between it and the WAP's built-in DHCP server?
When I set up ICS before, it had me create an "ICS Client Setup Disk". From what you've said it sounds like I won't need to use this disk to set up each of my client systems on the wired side of the network, right? I just need to configure the wired clients to use DHCP and the ICS DHCP "server" on the Win98 box will take care of it, right?
Thanks again,
Bob
My only question about this is the part about ICS setting up a DHCP "server" on the wired side of the network using the 192.168.x.x IP range with the 255.255.255.0 subnet mask. What is the scope of the ICS's DHCP "server"? Is it limited to the 192.168.0.x IP address range?
I'm concerned because my WAP's DHCP is set up to use the 192.168.254.x range with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. So, I want to make sure that the DHCP "server" that ICS will set up on the 98 box isn't going to try to assign addresses in the 192.168.254.x range to the WIRED side of the network.
Is this going to be a problem? If so, is it possible to restrict the ICS's DHCP "server" scope so that there is no overlap between it and the WAP's built-in DHCP server?
When I set up ICS before, it had me create an "ICS Client Setup Disk". From what you've said it sounds like I won't need to use this disk to set up each of my client systems on the wired side of the network, right? I just need to configure the wired clients to use DHCP and the ICS DHCP "server" on the Win98 box will take care of it, right?
Thanks again,
Bob
first, hope you are feeling better :~)
>Is it limited to the 192.168.0.x IP address range
yes it is
since the WAP's range is 192.168.254.x there will be no conflict (as long as you sue the 255.255.255.0 mask)
From what you've said it sounds like I won't need to use this disk to set up each of my client systems on the wired side of the network, right? I just need to configure the wired clients to use DHCP and the ICS DHCP "server" on the Win98 box will take care of it, right
that is correct :~)
So, I want to make sure that the DHCP "server" that ICS will set up on the 98 box isn't going to try to assign addresses in the 192.168.254.x range to the WIRED side of the network.
no fear, it will only assign in the 192.168.0.x range
>Is it limited to the 192.168.0.x IP address range
yes it is
since the WAP's range is 192.168.254.x there will be no conflict (as long as you sue the 255.255.255.0 mask)
From what you've said it sounds like I won't need to use this disk to set up each of my client systems on the wired side of the network, right? I just need to configure the wired clients to use DHCP and the ICS DHCP "server" on the Win98 box will take care of it, right
that is correct :~)
So, I want to make sure that the DHCP "server" that ICS will set up on the 98 box isn't going to try to assign addresses in the 192.168.254.x range to the WIRED side of the network.
no fear, it will only assign in the 192.168.0.x range
ASKER
Well, that all sounds great - if it works. When I installed ICS before I wasn't expecting it to change all my TCP/IP settings - I hadn't read up on it and didn't even realize it created a DHCP server on the box where ICS was installed. I think I may have started tinkering with the TCP/IP settings before even checking to see if it worked.
I'll give it a try and let you know. Cross your fingers - I sure am.....
Bob
I'll give it a try and let you know. Cross your fingers - I sure am.....
Bob
me too
ASKER
Well, no luck.
The ICS install went fine, and it assigned the wired NIC the 192.168.0.1 IP and 255.255.255.0 subnet mask - just like you predicted.
HOWEVER, other PCs on the wired network don't appear to be recognizing the Win98SE box as being now being a DHCP server. They are still being assigned IP addresses in the APIPA range - 169.254.x.x with a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0
Any ideas what would cause that? Why wouldn't the other wired computers recognize the DHCP server?
I even tried running the ICS Client Setup Disk on one of the wired clients - just for grins. It made no difference of course, since the client PC was already set up for DHCP with no Gateway, DNS, etc. configured.
So, any suggestions on what to try next?
Thanks,
Bob
The ICS install went fine, and it assigned the wired NIC the 192.168.0.1 IP and 255.255.255.0 subnet mask - just like you predicted.
HOWEVER, other PCs on the wired network don't appear to be recognizing the Win98SE box as being now being a DHCP server. They are still being assigned IP addresses in the APIPA range - 169.254.x.x with a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0
Any ideas what would cause that? Why wouldn't the other wired computers recognize the DHCP server?
I even tried running the ICS Client Setup Disk on one of the wired clients - just for grins. It made no difference of course, since the client PC was already set up for DHCP with no Gateway, DNS, etc. configured.
So, any suggestions on what to try next?
Thanks,
Bob
on one of the clients in the wired mahcine try static ip (for testing)
ip
192.168.0.2
maks 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.0.1
enable dns and use the dns ip provided by your isp
then
ping 127.0.0.1
ping 192.168.0.2
ping 192.168.0.1
ping 206.169.61.185
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com
please post the results here
ip
192.168.0.2
maks 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.0.1
enable dns and use the dns ip provided by your isp
then
ping 127.0.0.1
ping 192.168.0.2
ping 192.168.0.1
ping 206.169.61.185
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com
please post the results here
ASKER
OK, I actually tried some of that last night after I posted my last post.
After manually configuring the wired client NIC for 192.168.0.2 mask 255.255.255.0 I was able to ping the ICS computer fine. Naturally I had already tried pinging the loopback address and the address assigned to the wired NIC (192.168.0.2) and they both pinged fine.
I configured the gateway and DNS the way you said and pinged all of them again and here's what I got
ping 127.0.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.2 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 206.169.61.185 - request timed out x4
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com - unknown host
Then I tried changing the DNS to the IP of the ICS box (192.168.0.1) and did the ping testing again - the results were identical as follows
ping 127.0.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.2 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 206.169.61.185 - request timed out x4
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com - unknown host
Then I went into the IE/internet options/sharing and looked at the settings. I noticed something VERY interesting. "Under the Select the Adapter Used to Connect to the Internet" option it lists TWO of the USB Wireless Adapters - #1 and #2. The #1 adapter was the one that had been selected so, just for grins, I selected USB Wireless adapter #2, OK-ed out of it and rebooted. The really weird thing is that there aren't 2 USB adapters any where else - not under the Networking Components, and not under the Device Manager - only in the ICS configuration section. Weird, huh? After the reboot everything was still working fine on my ICS box, so next I went back to the wired system, switched it to use DHCP, deleted the gateway and DNS settings and rebooted it.
Guess what? DHCP function seemed to work! I ran Winipcfg.exe and it showed that it got 192.168.0.2 mask 255.255.255.0 as it's IP settings! It also listed the ICS box's IP address (192.168.0.1) in the DNS, gateway, and DHCP server and a valid dat and time in the (IP) "Lease Obtained" field. I about fell off my chair!
I then tried to access the internet but no matter what site I tried to go to I got the following Internet Explorer error message
"Internet Explorer cannot open the site http://XXXXXXX
An internal error occurred in the Windows Internet extensions"
Next I again tried pinging the list that you provided with the following results
ping 127.0.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.2 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 206.169.61.185 - OK 100%
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com - unknown host
Next I tried pinging other IP addresses of computers on the wireless side of my network - including the WAP - and they all responded just fine.
Then I tried pinging the IP address of the ICS/Win98SE (192.168.0.1) box from a PC on the wireless side of the network and got the old "request timed out" x4
So, it looks like everyting on the wired side is working except for the DNS. I don't quite get what the heck is going on with the wireless side - why can't I ping any of the wired computers from the wireless side?
One other thing I found very interesting is that in the the Network Components list it shows the ICS protocol for both of the network adapters, but when I open them to look at their properties the only properties page is the "bindings" tab and there is nothing listed there - just a blank window. I've never messed around with ICS before, so for all I know this may be "normal". The thing about there being two USB adapters listed in the ICS settings - but no where else - doesn't seem like a normal thing to me, but again, I am a real newbie at ICS so maybe that is normal too. The last thing that struck me as kind of odd is that since installing ICS when I run the Winipcfg.exe utility the adapters are listed as "3com 3c905b-tx" and "ICS Adapter" (instead of USB Wireless adapter - which is what it was listed as BEFORE installing ICS). This whole thing is just too weird. BTW, the USB Wireless Adapter I'm using is a Microsoft MN-510, and I bought it because I expected that, being from MS, it would be LESS likely to have compatability problems!
I'm beginning to think that my Win98 install/registry is so hosed up from installing/uninstalling/re
Your continued help and encouraging words are very much appreciated. You're sure working hard to earn that 300 points! I think I'll raise the point value if we ever get this problem solved!
Thanks again,
Bob
After manually configuring the wired client NIC for 192.168.0.2 mask 255.255.255.0 I was able to ping the ICS computer fine. Naturally I had already tried pinging the loopback address and the address assigned to the wired NIC (192.168.0.2) and they both pinged fine.
I configured the gateway and DNS the way you said and pinged all of them again and here's what I got
ping 127.0.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.2 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 206.169.61.185 - request timed out x4
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com - unknown host
Then I tried changing the DNS to the IP of the ICS box (192.168.0.1) and did the ping testing again - the results were identical as follows
ping 127.0.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.2 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 206.169.61.185 - request timed out x4
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com - unknown host
Then I went into the IE/internet options/sharing and looked at the settings. I noticed something VERY interesting. "Under the Select the Adapter Used to Connect to the Internet" option it lists TWO of the USB Wireless Adapters - #1 and #2. The #1 adapter was the one that had been selected so, just for grins, I selected USB Wireless adapter #2, OK-ed out of it and rebooted. The really weird thing is that there aren't 2 USB adapters any where else - not under the Networking Components, and not under the Device Manager - only in the ICS configuration section. Weird, huh? After the reboot everything was still working fine on my ICS box, so next I went back to the wired system, switched it to use DHCP, deleted the gateway and DNS settings and rebooted it.
Guess what? DHCP function seemed to work! I ran Winipcfg.exe and it showed that it got 192.168.0.2 mask 255.255.255.0 as it's IP settings! It also listed the ICS box's IP address (192.168.0.1) in the DNS, gateway, and DHCP server and a valid dat and time in the (IP) "Lease Obtained" field. I about fell off my chair!
I then tried to access the internet but no matter what site I tried to go to I got the following Internet Explorer error message
"Internet Explorer cannot open the site http://XXXXXXX
An internal error occurred in the Windows Internet extensions"
Next I again tried pinging the list that you provided with the following results
ping 127.0.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.2 - OK 100%
ping 192.168.0.1 - OK 100%
ping 206.169.61.185 - OK 100%
ping https://www.experts-exchange.com - unknown host
Next I tried pinging other IP addresses of computers on the wireless side of my network - including the WAP - and they all responded just fine.
Then I tried pinging the IP address of the ICS/Win98SE (192.168.0.1) box from a PC on the wireless side of the network and got the old "request timed out" x4
So, it looks like everyting on the wired side is working except for the DNS. I don't quite get what the heck is going on with the wireless side - why can't I ping any of the wired computers from the wireless side?
One other thing I found very interesting is that in the the Network Components list it shows the ICS protocol for both of the network adapters, but when I open them to look at their properties the only properties page is the "bindings" tab and there is nothing listed there - just a blank window. I've never messed around with ICS before, so for all I know this may be "normal". The thing about there being two USB adapters listed in the ICS settings - but no where else - doesn't seem like a normal thing to me, but again, I am a real newbie at ICS so maybe that is normal too. The last thing that struck me as kind of odd is that since installing ICS when I run the Winipcfg.exe utility the adapters are listed as "3com 3c905b-tx" and "ICS Adapter" (instead of USB Wireless adapter - which is what it was listed as BEFORE installing ICS). This whole thing is just too weird. BTW, the USB Wireless Adapter I'm using is a Microsoft MN-510, and I bought it because I expected that, being from MS, it would be LESS likely to have compatability problems!
I'm beginning to think that my Win98 install/registry is so hosed up from installing/uninstalling/re
Your continued help and encouraging words are very much appreciated. You're sure working hard to earn that 300 points! I think I'll raise the point value if we ever get this problem solved!
Thanks again,
Bob
Finally, as a last resort you can try the following:
Use Registry Editor to export and then delete the
following registry keys:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\
KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\C
k2
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\
nsock(if existing)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\
nsock2
Uninstall Dial-Up Networking at Control Panel, Add/Remove
Programmes, Windows Setup, Communications.
Restart your computer then reinstall dial-up networking:
Use Registry Editor to export and then delete the
following registry keys:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\
KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\C
k2
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\
nsock(if existing)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\
nsock2
Uninstall Dial-Up Networking at Control Panel, Add/Remove
Programmes, Windows Setup, Communications.
Restart your computer then reinstall dial-up networking:
ASKER
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the logic behind this suggested process. Are you suggesting doing this on the ICS box, or on the wired client computer?
Which of the problems is it intended to address?
Is this going to eliminate the duplicate USB Wireless Adapters?
Is the wireless adapter showing up only as "ICS Adapter" (instead of as USB Wireless Adapter)in Winipcfg normal, and if not is this going to address this problem?
Is this related to the fact that the wireless computers can't ping the wired side of the network, even though the wired computers can ping all of the wireless computers?
Thanks,
Bob
Which of the problems is it intended to address?
Is this going to eliminate the duplicate USB Wireless Adapters?
Is the wireless adapter showing up only as "ICS Adapter" (instead of as USB Wireless Adapter)in Winipcfg normal, and if not is this going to address this problem?
Is this related to the fact that the wireless computers can't ping the wired side of the network, even though the wired computers can ping all of the wireless computers?
Thanks,
Bob
ASKER
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the logic behind this suggested process. Are you suggesting doing this on the ICS box, or on the wired client computer?
Which of the problems is it intended to address?
Is this going to eliminate the duplicate USB Wireless Adapters?
Is the wireless adapter showing up only as "ICS Adapter" (instead of as USB Wireless Adapter)in Winipcfg normal, and if not is this going to address this problem?
Is this related to the fact that the wireless computers can't ping the wired side of the network, even though the wired computers can ping all of the wireless computers?
Thanks,
Bob
Which of the problems is it intended to address?
Is this going to eliminate the duplicate USB Wireless Adapters?
Is the wireless adapter showing up only as "ICS Adapter" (instead of as USB Wireless Adapter)in Winipcfg normal, and if not is this going to address this problem?
Is this related to the fact that the wireless computers can't ping the wired side of the network, even though the wired computers can ping all of the wireless computers?
Thanks,
Bob
ASKER
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the logic behind this suggested process. Are you suggesting doing this on the ICS box, or on the wired client computer?
Which of the problems is it intended to address?
Is this going to eliminate the duplicate USB Wireless Adapters?
Is the wireless adapter showing up only as "ICS Adapter" (instead of as USB Wireless Adapter)in Winipcfg normal, and if not is this going to address this problem?
Is this related to the fact that the wireless computers can't ping the wired side of the network, even though the wired computers can ping all of the wireless computers?
Thanks,
Bob
Which of the problems is it intended to address?
Is this going to eliminate the duplicate USB Wireless Adapters?
Is the wireless adapter showing up only as "ICS Adapter" (instead of as USB Wireless Adapter)in Winipcfg normal, and if not is this going to address this problem?
Is this related to the fact that the wireless computers can't ping the wired side of the network, even though the wired computers can ping all of the wireless computers?
Thanks,
Bob
that fix is designed to repair winsock damage (dns non resolution is a symptom of this), but before we go there
can the ICS host (for the wired LAN) surf and resolve host names?
can the ICS host (for the wired LAN) surf and resolve host names?
ASKER
So then this "winsock damage fix" you're proposing is for the wired client that can't seem to resolve DNS, right?
The ICS host (multihomed Win98SE box) is surfing the net just fine - no DNS problem there, but then it is using the WAP's IP as it's DNS. The WAP is getting it's DNS from my ISP's DHCP server.
I figured that the last solution you proposed must be a suggestion for something to try on the wired client since it is now succeeding at pinging the 206.169.61.185 IP address (which is out there on the net somewhere) through the ICS system, the WAP, and my ISP's server. That tells me the gateway configurations must be OK - or else it wouldn't work, which makes me think that the problem must be with the DNS configuration since it can't ping the experts exchange server by name, right?
What I still don't get is why can't I ping the wired side of the network from the wireless systems, but I can ping the wireless systems from the wired side just fine.
The ICS host (multihomed Win98SE box) is surfing the net just fine - no DNS problem there, but then it is using the WAP's IP as it's DNS. The WAP is getting it's DNS from my ISP's DHCP server.
I figured that the last solution you proposed must be a suggestion for something to try on the wired client since it is now succeeding at pinging the 206.169.61.185 IP address (which is out there on the net somewhere) through the ICS system, the WAP, and my ISP's server. That tells me the gateway configurations must be OK - or else it wouldn't work, which makes me think that the problem must be with the DNS configuration since it can't ping the experts exchange server by name, right?
What I still don't get is why can't I ping the wired side of the network from the wireless systems, but I can ping the wireless systems from the wired side just fine.
Just as a test try this dns entry on one of the wired clients
129.250.35.250
129.250.35.250
ASKER
So then this "winsock damage fix" you're proposing is for the wired client that can't seem to resolve DNS, right?
The ICS host (multihomed Win98SE box) is surfing the net just fine - no DNS problem there, but then it is using the WAP's IP as it's DNS. The WAP is getting it's DNS from my ISP's DHCP server.
I figured that the last solution you proposed must be a suggestion for something to try on the wired client since it is now succeeding at pinging the 206.169.61.185 IP address (which is out there on the net somewhere) through the ICS system, the WAP, and my ISP's server. That tells me the gateway configurations must be OK - or else it wouldn't work, which makes me think that the problem must be with the DNS configuration since it can't ping the experts exchange server by name, right?
What I still don't get is why can't I ping the wired side of the network from the wireless systems, but I can ping the wireless systems from the wired side just fine.
The ICS host (multihomed Win98SE box) is surfing the net just fine - no DNS problem there, but then it is using the WAP's IP as it's DNS. The WAP is getting it's DNS from my ISP's DHCP server.
I figured that the last solution you proposed must be a suggestion for something to try on the wired client since it is now succeeding at pinging the 206.169.61.185 IP address (which is out there on the net somewhere) through the ICS system, the WAP, and my ISP's server. That tells me the gateway configurations must be OK - or else it wouldn't work, which makes me think that the problem must be with the DNS configuration since it can't ping the experts exchange server by name, right?
What I still don't get is why can't I ping the wired side of the network from the wireless systems, but I can ping the wireless systems from the wired side just fine.
206.169.61.185 IP address (which is out there on the net somewhere)
yes, it is experts-exchange
the reason you can ping from one side to the other, but not in reverse is the wireless side doesn't know the route to the wired side, but the wired side knows the route to the wireless (ICS)
yes, it is experts-exchange
the reason you can ping from one side to the other, but not in reverse is the wireless side doesn't know the route to the wired side, but the wired side knows the route to the wireless (ICS)
ASKER
Sorry I did a refresh in Internet Explorer and it posted my previous comments a second time. OOOOOPPPPS!
Anyway, even though you never actually answered the question I acted on the assumption that the dial-up networking uninstall/reinstall you suggested was supposed to be done on the wired client, so I went ahead and did it. That was a good call on your part - it worked and now the wired client is browsing the net just fine now.
I didn't try your suggestion of setting the DNS to 129.250.35.250. I didn't see what the point would be since using my ISP's DNS didn't work the other day when I tried it. What is that IP address anyway?
I appreciate all your helpful suggestions. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a little time to answer questions too, if you can. I'm not just looking for a working solution here - I'm trying to understand the why & how of what you're having me do as well. Otherwise I'm just your remote-controlled hands on the keyboard and I don't learn anything. The next time I run into a similar problem I'll just need help from you (or another expert) again. I know that in most cases a working solution is all most people are looking for so it's easy to get into that mode, but just getting it to work isn't very satifying to me - I want to understand why things we're trying do or don't work.
So, at this point almost everything is working. I can browse the internet from both the wired and wireless networks. I can ping both the wired and wireless networks from the ICS box. I can ping all the wireless systems from the wired clients. The only things I can't do are
1) ping the wired clients from any of the wireless clients. Shouldn't I be able to do this? Shouldn't the ICS box be acting as a router going both directions?
2) browse both sides of the network in the network neighborhood - I can't even do this from ICS box and it is directly connected to both networks.
Any ideas on solving those two things?
Bob
Anyway, even though you never actually answered the question I acted on the assumption that the dial-up networking uninstall/reinstall you suggested was supposed to be done on the wired client, so I went ahead and did it. That was a good call on your part - it worked and now the wired client is browsing the net just fine now.
I didn't try your suggestion of setting the DNS to 129.250.35.250. I didn't see what the point would be since using my ISP's DNS didn't work the other day when I tried it. What is that IP address anyway?
I appreciate all your helpful suggestions. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a little time to answer questions too, if you can. I'm not just looking for a working solution here - I'm trying to understand the why & how of what you're having me do as well. Otherwise I'm just your remote-controlled hands on the keyboard and I don't learn anything. The next time I run into a similar problem I'll just need help from you (or another expert) again. I know that in most cases a working solution is all most people are looking for so it's easy to get into that mode, but just getting it to work isn't very satifying to me - I want to understand why things we're trying do or don't work.
So, at this point almost everything is working. I can browse the internet from both the wired and wireless networks. I can ping both the wired and wireless networks from the ICS box. I can ping all the wireless systems from the wired clients. The only things I can't do are
1) ping the wired clients from any of the wireless clients. Shouldn't I be able to do this? Shouldn't the ICS box be acting as a router going both directions?
2) browse both sides of the network in the network neighborhood - I can't even do this from ICS box and it is directly connected to both networks.
Any ideas on solving those two things?
Bob
ASKER
OK, so then this command
route add 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.36
should take care of that, right? (where 192.168.254.36 is the IP address of the USB wireless adapter in the ICS box).
route add 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.36
should take care of that, right? (where 192.168.254.36 is the IP address of the USB wireless adapter in the ICS box).
Hi again Bob, went to bed I was very tired.
glad we have things working to a point
now we have to add the route add command to the ICS machine so the wireless network can know how to get to the wired network (right now it thinks it should go out the default gateway, which of course won't work, as that's not the "door" to the wired network)
on the ICS box we need to
route add 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1
this command will tell it that the "door" to the 192.168.0.0. network is the adapter 192.168.0.1
> ping the wired clients from any of the wireless clients. Shouldn't I be able to do this? Shouldn't the ICS box be acting as a router going both directions?
not right now, it only knows to route outgoing packets, with the route add command it should know how to route incoming packets
browse both sides of the network in the network neighborhood - I can't even do this from ICS box and it is directly connected to both networks.
it should be able to do so by ip address, but not necessarily by NetBIOS name
It is technically on a different network than the wireless, and this is going to make the browsing a lot more difficult
you should be able to find a machine and map a drive by using ip addresses, but remember, they are not one the same network, and won't show up in network neighborhood, as they are not in the neighborhood. You would need WINS servers on each network segment (one for the wired, and one for the wireless, and have them sync or share the info)
A WINS server would let you resolve NetBIOS names to ip addresses
NetBEUI won't help either, as NetBEUI is not routable, and won't go thru the ICS box
glad we have things working to a point
now we have to add the route add command to the ICS machine so the wireless network can know how to get to the wired network (right now it thinks it should go out the default gateway, which of course won't work, as that's not the "door" to the wired network)
on the ICS box we need to
route add 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1
this command will tell it that the "door" to the 192.168.0.0. network is the adapter 192.168.0.1
> ping the wired clients from any of the wireless clients. Shouldn't I be able to do this? Shouldn't the ICS box be acting as a router going both directions?
not right now, it only knows to route outgoing packets, with the route add command it should know how to route incoming packets
browse both sides of the network in the network neighborhood - I can't even do this from ICS box and it is directly connected to both networks.
it should be able to do so by ip address, but not necessarily by NetBIOS name
It is technically on a different network than the wireless, and this is going to make the browsing a lot more difficult
you should be able to find a machine and map a drive by using ip addresses, but remember, they are not one the same network, and won't show up in network neighborhood, as they are not in the neighborhood. You would need WINS servers on each network segment (one for the wired, and one for the wireless, and have them sync or share the info)
A WINS server would let you resolve NetBIOS names to ip addresses
NetBEUI won't help either, as NetBEUI is not routable, and won't go thru the ICS box
I am reluctant to have you try this, as we are real close now, except the browsing issue, but we can change the scope of the ICS dhcp server, and the default ip of the ICS LAN NIC, to put them all in the same network. In theory, you then should be able to browse the network as both the wired and wireless would be on the same network. I have never done this, and can't say for sure if it will work but you seem the adventurous type. back up the registry before trying this, so you can undo it if it goes awry!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q230148
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q230148
ASKER
Well, I tried the route add command you suggested, and it executed with no errors, but nothing changed. I still can't ping 192.16.0.1 OR 192.168.0.2 (ICS box and wired client) from any of the systems on the wireless side.
There's one thing I don't understand regarding your statement that the ICS system can route packets out from the wired clients but not back to them. That being the case, how can the wired clients browse the Internet? Given that the wireless side of the network is the one connected to my cable modem/ISP, aren't the packets from the web sites being routed from the Internet servers throught the wireless network and then through the ICS box to get back to the wired clients to display the web pages? I'd think it would have to be working in the other direction too since the packets for making the web page requests from the wired clients are traveling from the wired client through the ICS box to the wireless side and out to the Internet web servers.
Maybe I have a fundimental misunderstanding of how this works. Anyway, I ran a route print command and here's the output - if that helps.
Active Routes:
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.254.254 192.168.254.36 1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
192.168.0.1 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
192.168.254.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.36 192.168.254.36 1
192.168.254.36 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.254.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.254.36 192.168.254.36 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.254.36 192.168.254.36 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
Another interesting thing is that while I can ping all of the wireless systems from the wired client, I can't connect to any of their shared drives. I tried mapping drives in Windows Explorer like this
\\192.168.254.20\c
and I get an error message saying
"The computer or sharename could not be found. Make sure you typed it correctly and try again"
I also tried going to a DOS prompt and typing
net use z: \\192.168.254.20\c
and I get a message that says
"Error 53: the computer you specified in the network path cannot be located. Make sure you are specifying the computer name correctly, or try again later when the remote computer is available"
In both instances "c" is the share name for the shared C:\ drive of one of the wireless system with the assigned IP address of 192.168.254.20
Naturally, neither method works when trying to map a wired client's drive from a wireless client - no surprise there since I still can't ping in that directrion either.
And of course both of those methods work just fine if I'm mapping a shared drive on a wireless client to another wirless client, or if I'm mapping a drive between two wired client.
Could this have something to do with the fact that I see two wireless USB adapters under the ICS Sharing configuration - a possible sign of somekind of "trash" in the registry? Otherwise I just don't get it.............
There's one thing I don't understand regarding your statement that the ICS system can route packets out from the wired clients but not back to them. That being the case, how can the wired clients browse the Internet? Given that the wireless side of the network is the one connected to my cable modem/ISP, aren't the packets from the web sites being routed from the Internet servers throught the wireless network and then through the ICS box to get back to the wired clients to display the web pages? I'd think it would have to be working in the other direction too since the packets for making the web page requests from the wired clients are traveling from the wired client through the ICS box to the wireless side and out to the Internet web servers.
Maybe I have a fundimental misunderstanding of how this works. Anyway, I ran a route print command and here's the output - if that helps.
Active Routes:
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.254.254 192.168.254.36 1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
192.168.0.1 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
192.168.254.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.36 192.168.254.36 1
192.168.254.36 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.254.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.254.36 192.168.254.36 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.254.36 192.168.254.36 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.1 1
Another interesting thing is that while I can ping all of the wireless systems from the wired client, I can't connect to any of their shared drives. I tried mapping drives in Windows Explorer like this
\\192.168.254.20\c
and I get an error message saying
"The computer or sharename could not be found. Make sure you typed it correctly and try again"
I also tried going to a DOS prompt and typing
net use z: \\192.168.254.20\c
and I get a message that says
"Error 53: the computer you specified in the network path cannot be located. Make sure you are specifying the computer name correctly, or try again later when the remote computer is available"
In both instances "c" is the share name for the shared C:\ drive of one of the wireless system with the assigned IP address of 192.168.254.20
Naturally, neither method works when trying to map a wired client's drive from a wireless client - no surprise there since I still can't ping in that directrion either.
And of course both of those methods work just fine if I'm mapping a shared drive on a wireless client to another wirless client, or if I'm mapping a drive between two wired client.
Could this have something to do with the fact that I see two wireless USB adapters under the ICS Sharing configuration - a possible sign of somekind of "trash" in the registry? Otherwise I just don't get it.............
OK Bob, the reason you can surf and ping from the wired side is due to NAT (network address transaltion) Look it up on google and read up on it. This is provided by ICS
You should be able to map a drive from the wired side to the wireless with or without the route add
the route add was to try and get the ping to work from the wireless to the wired
I'm going to ask some other experts to come in and see if they can help
You should be able to map a drive from the wired side to the wireless with or without the route add
the route add was to try and get the ping to work from the wireless to the wired
I'm going to ask some other experts to come in and see if they can help
"under normal conditions, Windows 98 cannot route TCP/IP traffic between two networks. You must install additional routing software to make this possible."
Windows ICS is Microsoft's answer, but Steve is correct in that the ICS 'router' will mask the inside network using NAT, so the other systems will never see any address except yours. That's why you can't ping in the reverse direction if you are trying to ping the 'real' ip address. Packets returning to a request from the inside (ping responses, web pages, etc) are responding to the outside address of the ICS machine which is keeping a map of the "real" ip address/port that request will be forwarde back to.
Hope this helps!
IMHO, Microsoft has never sold a router, never claimed 98 could be a router, and added ICS as a function with a very specific purpose. Even if you can 'force' it to be a router, it will not function well, or allow you to configure it the way you want.
You could get a real router wired/wireless like a Linksys or D-link or something, and save yourself a ton of grief.
Hope this helps!
<8-}
Windows ICS is Microsoft's answer, but Steve is correct in that the ICS 'router' will mask the inside network using NAT, so the other systems will never see any address except yours. That's why you can't ping in the reverse direction if you are trying to ping the 'real' ip address. Packets returning to a request from the inside (ping responses, web pages, etc) are responding to the outside address of the ICS machine which is keeping a map of the "real" ip address/port that request will be forwarde back to.
Hope this helps!
IMHO, Microsoft has never sold a router, never claimed 98 could be a router, and added ICS as a function with a very specific purpose. Even if you can 'force' it to be a router, it will not function well, or allow you to configure it the way you want.
You could get a real router wired/wireless like a Linksys or D-link or something, and save yourself a ton of grief.
Hope this helps!
<8-}
ASKER
Of COURSE! I completely forgot about the NAT built into ICS. I should have realized - it is specifically aimed at preventing computers on the internet side (which in my case is the wireless side) of the network from being able to "reach out and touch" the "real" IP addresses of the clients on the private network side of the ICS box (DUH!?!)
The problem with buying a hardware router in this case is that the wired network is in a seperate building from my Speedstream WAP/router and its internet connection. That makes a wired router a bit more difficult. I guess the simplese solution would be to just run a CAT-5 cable from one of the ports on my existing WAP/router and plug it into the uplink port on the hub out in my shop. Unfortunately, to do that I have to drill a hole through the wall of my house, and through the wall of the shop, and then I'd still need to find some kind of exterior-grade CAT-5 (do they even make such a thing?). I know that would work, but that solution just isn't as elegant as what I was hoping to achieve.
To do it wirelessly what I actually need is a wireless point to multipoint bridge (which I'd expect to be much more expensive than a standard WAP/router) and it would have to work with my existing Speedstream WAP/router - or else I'd have to replace the Speedstream too. Not a very cost-effective solution for a home-network that is just a hobby. Besides, although the solution I'm pursuing may be a headache - the "fun" and learning experience of it really a big part of why I'm doing it in the first place
:-P
As for third-party routing software, I did a search for Windows 98 compatible software router and found a downloadable, shareware program called 602 Pro LAN. The basic 5-license version is even available as freeware! Here's the web page
http://www.software602.com/products/ls/
Are you at all familiar with their products? Does this look like the right sutff to you? Maybe I should give that a try..........
The problem with buying a hardware router in this case is that the wired network is in a seperate building from my Speedstream WAP/router and its internet connection. That makes a wired router a bit more difficult. I guess the simplese solution would be to just run a CAT-5 cable from one of the ports on my existing WAP/router and plug it into the uplink port on the hub out in my shop. Unfortunately, to do that I have to drill a hole through the wall of my house, and through the wall of the shop, and then I'd still need to find some kind of exterior-grade CAT-5 (do they even make such a thing?). I know that would work, but that solution just isn't as elegant as what I was hoping to achieve.
To do it wirelessly what I actually need is a wireless point to multipoint bridge (which I'd expect to be much more expensive than a standard WAP/router) and it would have to work with my existing Speedstream WAP/router - or else I'd have to replace the Speedstream too. Not a very cost-effective solution for a home-network that is just a hobby. Besides, although the solution I'm pursuing may be a headache - the "fun" and learning experience of it really a big part of why I'm doing it in the first place
:-P
As for third-party routing software, I did a search for Windows 98 compatible software router and found a downloadable, shareware program called 602 Pro LAN. The basic 5-license version is even available as freeware! Here's the web page
http://www.software602.com/products/ls/
Are you at all familiar with their products? Does this look like the right sutff to you? Maybe I should give that a try..........
How about a WAP at one end and wireless bridge at the other?
the 602 product looks like ICS on steriods, with smtp/pop3 servers added in. Still not what you are looking for.
the 602 product looks like ICS on steriods, with smtp/pop3 servers added in. Still not what you are looking for.
ASKER
OK, any suggestions on another inexpensive router software solution that is Win 98 compatible?
Or how 'bout a wireless bridge recommendation - one that will work with my SpeedStream SS2623 WAP/router?
Or how 'bout a wireless bridge recommendation - one that will work with my SpeedStream SS2623 WAP/router?
I agree with lrmoore., doesn't look like that is what you are looking for
here is a router on a floppy, don't know if it will suport USB
http://www.freesco.org/
http://www.freesco.org/overview.shtml
here is a router on a floppy, don't know if it will suport USB
http://www.freesco.org/
http://www.freesco.org/overview.shtml
ASKER
Well, the router on a floppy sounds good, but I don't think I'm quite ready to jump into Linux at this point - I'm still working on mastering Microsoft - and I obviously still have a way to go there :-) Any other suggestions of something similar that runs on Win98?
So, I take it that the 602 Pro LAN suite does it's thing by using NAT too, eh? Is it possible to disable the NAT function in ICS or Pro LAN either one? From looking at the web page Pro LAN looks like it is pretty configurable.
So, I take it that the 602 Pro LAN suite does it's thing by using NAT too, eh? Is it possible to disable the NAT function in ICS or Pro LAN either one? From looking at the web page Pro LAN looks like it is pretty configurable.
No, that is how the sharing works, by using NAT. I have searched for a router solution on 98 before, and never came up with one :~(
ASKER
I haven't had much luck with looking for it myself either. I think I'll give the ICS registry hack you sent me a try and see if I have any luck with that. I'll let you know how it goes..........
ASKER
Hey, I thought of anouther idea. What if I left ICS installed as is and then installed 602 Pro LAN and set it up just the opposite way - set it up as if the wired adapter were the one attached to the Internet?
You can try it, but I doubt it will work, and may in fact mess up what we have got already (internet access for the wired machines)
when the wireless machines try and ping the wired network, from the ip, they know it is not on the local network, and send it to the default gateway (the router to the internet)
you could try a route add on one of the wireless machines to tell it to use the wireless usb on the 98 box for the gateway to the wired network
assuming the wireless adapter is 192.168.254.3
then
route add 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.3
may or may not work (I'm grasping at straws here)
then try to ping from it
As we both pointed out, 98 was not designed as a network router
when the wireless machines try and ping the wired network, from the ip, they know it is not on the local network, and send it to the default gateway (the router to the internet)
you could try a route add on one of the wireless machines to tell it to use the wireless usb on the 98 box for the gateway to the wired network
assuming the wireless adapter is 192.168.254.3
then
route add 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.254.3
may or may not work (I'm grasping at straws here)
then try to ping from it
As we both pointed out, 98 was not designed as a network router
lrmoore posted this in another thread, but I think you should read it
http://www.lpt.com/windowsnetworking/regusers/wxpbrdge.htm
especially the part about routers in small networks
http://www.lpt.com/windowsnetworking/regusers/wxpbrdge.htm
especially the part about routers in small networks
ASKER
I came up with another idea - similar to the ICS registry hack but simpler. In looking at the configuration options for my WAP I can change it's IP address and DHCP range from 192.168.254.x to the 192.168.0.x range. My only concern in doing this is to make sure that the ICS DHCP range doesn't go all the way up to (or beyond) 192.254.0.200 or so because I'd like to change the WAP's address from 192.168.254.254 to 192.168.0.254 and it's DHCP range from 192.168.254.1-40 to 192.168.0.201-240
Do you know how many IP addresses are in the ICS box's DHCP scope by default? If not I can always take a peek at that registry key & hack it to limit it's scope.
Once I've done that to get all the systems on both sides into the same workgroup, would it help if I change the File & Printer Sharing for MS Networks Browse Master setting from "Automatic" to "Yes" on the ICS box. I'd leave it set to Automatic everywhere else. Then if I shut down all the systems and start up the ICS box first it would become Browse Master and maintain the browse lists for both networks. I was thinking that maybe that might get them all visible in the Network Neighborhood. What do you think?
Do you know how many IP addresses are in the ICS box's DHCP scope by default? If not I can always take a peek at that registry key & hack it to limit it's scope.
Once I've done that to get all the systems on both sides into the same workgroup, would it help if I change the File & Printer Sharing for MS Networks Browse Master setting from "Automatic" to "Yes" on the ICS box. I'd leave it set to Automatic everywhere else. Then if I shut down all the systems and start up the ICS box first it would become Browse Master and maintain the browse lists for both networks. I was thinking that maybe that might get them all visible in the Network Neighborhood. What do you think?
ASKER
I already did the ICS registry hack to modify it's DHCP scope (after backing up the registry of course). It was 192.168.0.2-253 and I reduced it to 192.168.0.2-200.
Now I can change the IP address & DHCP scope on my WAP to 192.168.0.254 and 192.168.0.201-240 and see what happens. I'll let you know......
BTW, remember the "duplicate" USB adapter I was seeing in ICS configuration (but no where else)? Well I found it and nixed it in the registry - that got rid of it in the ICS configuration app. I found the "real" one and the phantom "duplicate" by searching for "Wireless USB" (part of the adapter description in the ICS configuration app) and figured out which one to get rid of based on the fact that the "phantom" was set for channel 6 and the "real" one was set for channel 11 (which is correct for my setup). I deleted the "phantom" adapter (after again backing up the registry of course) and now it is gone in the ICS configuration app.
Now I can change the IP address & DHCP scope on my WAP to 192.168.0.254 and 192.168.0.201-240 and see what happens. I'll let you know......
BTW, remember the "duplicate" USB adapter I was seeing in ICS configuration (but no where else)? Well I found it and nixed it in the registry - that got rid of it in the ICS configuration app. I found the "real" one and the phantom "duplicate" by searching for "Wireless USB" (part of the adapter description in the ICS configuration app) and figured out which one to get rid of based on the fact that the "phantom" was set for channel 6 and the "real" one was set for channel 11 (which is correct for my setup). I deleted the "phantom" adapter (after again backing up the registry of course) and now it is gone in the ICS configuration app.
ASKER
Well, THAT was disaster! At first it looked like it wasn't going to work. I tried uninstalling ICS and my USB adapter, then reinstalling the adapter and and ICS, and then it worked - for a few minutes.
Everything seemed OK until I started renewing the IP addresses on all the DHCP clients - both wired and wireless. Then the USB adapter in the ICS box stopped working again and a few minutes later my WAP locked up.
Looks like either ICS or the WAP (or both) don't like having more than one DHCP on the same subnet. Even though they weren't configured to have any overlap in thier scopes, something about it caused the whole thing to blow up.
I ended up shutting down the ICS box and while it was off I did a hard-reset on my WAP - resetting it back to factory defaults. Then I reconfigured the WAP admin password and encryption key. Next I rebooted the ICS box and everything is back to woorking again, just like it was before I started messing with it. I renewed the IP addresses on a couple of the clients and all seems to be working fine again.
So, another little bit of knowledge to tuck away - the ICS DHCP scope modification registry hack won't work to bring both networks into the same subnet - at least not if you already have a DHCP server on the internet-connected subnet and/or if the ICS adapter is a Microsoft MN-510 USB adapter.
Still no luck finding a software router on the net. I've found several internet connection sharing programs, but it looks like all of them use NAT. I'm writing emails to a few of their tech support departments to see if it is possible to disable the NAT in any of them.
I did find info on one program that looked very promising. Its called SoftRouter Plus by a company named Vicomsoft. Unfortunately it is an obsolete product that has been rolled into a newer version that is - you guessed it - NAT based. Now, if I could only find a copy of the older program free (or at least cheap) someplace.........
Everything seemed OK until I started renewing the IP addresses on all the DHCP clients - both wired and wireless. Then the USB adapter in the ICS box stopped working again and a few minutes later my WAP locked up.
Looks like either ICS or the WAP (or both) don't like having more than one DHCP on the same subnet. Even though they weren't configured to have any overlap in thier scopes, something about it caused the whole thing to blow up.
I ended up shutting down the ICS box and while it was off I did a hard-reset on my WAP - resetting it back to factory defaults. Then I reconfigured the WAP admin password and encryption key. Next I rebooted the ICS box and everything is back to woorking again, just like it was before I started messing with it. I renewed the IP addresses on a couple of the clients and all seems to be working fine again.
So, another little bit of knowledge to tuck away - the ICS DHCP scope modification registry hack won't work to bring both networks into the same subnet - at least not if you already have a DHCP server on the internet-connected subnet and/or if the ICS adapter is a Microsoft MN-510 USB adapter.
Still no luck finding a software router on the net. I've found several internet connection sharing programs, but it looks like all of them use NAT. I'm writing emails to a few of their tech support departments to see if it is possible to disable the NAT in any of them.
I did find info on one program that looked very promising. Its called SoftRouter Plus by a company named Vicomsoft. Unfortunately it is an obsolete product that has been rolled into a newer version that is - you guessed it - NAT based. Now, if I could only find a copy of the older program free (or at least cheap) someplace.........
Well Bob, I'll say one thing, your like a pit bull on this one *grin*
I checked out the softRouter, and if you can only use the router part of it with out the ICS, it may work
I checked out the softRouter, and if you can only use the router part of it with out the ICS, it may work
ASKER
Yeah, I'm as stubborn as the day is long. When I see something like this that *should* work but doesn't I usually pursue it far, far, beyond what any "reasonable" person would! The good thing is I usually learn a lot in the process. Tenacity is one of my stronger virtues - or maybe vices - depending on your perspective.
I've written numerous tech support departments of companies that provide internet sharing programs asking if the NAT function can be turned off in their software. I'm getting some positive responses - I'll share that info with you when I've gathered and collated it into a presentable form.
Now, since we're coming to the end of our working together on this problem, there is the issue of awarding the points. I think for all your effort you earned least 400 points - even though we never completely solved the whole problem.
I think I should award some points to lrmoore as well since he wrote back a few times and was the first one to put his finger on the NAT problem, don't you? I was thinking maybe 50 or 75 would be fair, don't you?
Let me know what you think/feel about this proposition.
I've written numerous tech support departments of companies that provide internet sharing programs asking if the NAT function can be turned off in their software. I'm getting some positive responses - I'll share that info with you when I've gathered and collated it into a presentable form.
Now, since we're coming to the end of our working together on this problem, there is the issue of awarding the points. I think for all your effort you earned least 400 points - even though we never completely solved the whole problem.
I think I should award some points to lrmoore as well since he wrote back a few times and was the first one to put his finger on the NAT problem, don't you? I was thinking maybe 50 or 75 would be fair, don't you?
Let me know what you think/feel about this proposition.
Honestly whatever you think is fair is cool by me. I'm (and lrmoore) aren't in this for the points. We do this because we like to help, and we learn along the way too!
ASKER
Just out of curiosity, what are the points good for anyway - besides possibly bragging rights? I mean I pay cash for points, so do you guys get to redeem them for cash or prizes or something?
they really aren't worth much for us
1, they are used for rankings, both in the TA (topic area) and in the hall of fame
2, if an expert has 10000 expert points and gets 3000 per month we get free premium service (2500 question points per month, and the premium interface)
now most of us hardly ever ask tech quesions, so the 2500 question points just sit there (we use them to award others if we feel they contributed, or we were awarded eroneously, to fix it)
3. and ego stroke LOL
they used to have a t-shirt program (about 2 years ago, but have discontinued it, and the top t-shirt was for 100000 points (lots of us have long passed that level)
so aside from the premium service, not much, and as I pointed out, most of us don't need the question points either. To be perfecly honest, I get more pleasure from the "good answer" email notif that we get :~)
If one of our comments is chosen, we get a notif telling us good answer
1, they are used for rankings, both in the TA (topic area) and in the hall of fame
2, if an expert has 10000 expert points and gets 3000 per month we get free premium service (2500 question points per month, and the premium interface)
now most of us hardly ever ask tech quesions, so the 2500 question points just sit there (we use them to award others if we feel they contributed, or we were awarded eroneously, to fix it)
3. and ego stroke LOL
they used to have a t-shirt program (about 2 years ago, but have discontinued it, and the top t-shirt was for 100000 points (lots of us have long passed that level)
so aside from the premium service, not much, and as I pointed out, most of us don't need the question points either. To be perfecly honest, I get more pleasure from the "good answer" email notif that we get :~)
If one of our comments is chosen, we get a notif telling us good answer
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
braggin' rights is it. nothing more.
cheers!
cheers!
Per request in https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20555634/I'd-like-to-do-a-points-split.html the points in this question have been reduced for the purpose of enabling a split.
rcounts,
Here's what you do now:
1. In this topic area, as a 50-point question for [Expert2] with the title "For [Expert2] re: 20543578". In the body of the question, put the URL for this question.
2. Come back to this question and select the comment of [Expert1] as an answer. Leave a comment telling [Expert2] the URL to the "points for" question.
3. When [Expert2] comments in the new question, accept that comment as an answer.
Netminder
EE Admin
rcounts,
Here's what you do now:
1. In this topic area, as a 50-point question for [Expert2] with the title "For [Expert2] re: 20543578". In the body of the question, put the URL for this question.
2. Come back to this question and select the comment of [Expert1] as an answer. Leave a comment telling [Expert2] the URL to the "points for" question.
3. When [Expert2] comments in the new question, accept that comment as an answer.
Netminder
EE Admin
ASKER
lrmoore
For your input you've got 50 points waiting for you here
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20555634/I'd-like-to-do-a-points-split.html
For your input you've got 50 points waiting for you here
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20555634/I'd-like-to-do-a-points-split.html
ASKER
We didn't find a 100% solution, but it sure wasn't because expert stevenlewis didn't try hard. I was impressed wit the way he stuck with me through MANY different attempted solutions (look at how LONG the thread is for goodness' sake!)
Thanks for all the effort man - & thanks to expert lrmoore for his valuable input too...........
Thanks for all the effort man - & thanks to expert lrmoore for his valuable input too...........
we sure gave it the old college try!!
If you do find a way to get it 100%, please let me know, so I can help someone else in the same boat, should the need arise
Steve
If you do find a way to get it 100%, please let me know, so I can help someone else in the same boat, should the need arise
Steve
next when you ran the ICS wizard, go back and check your settings (it may/probably have changed the ip info)
I assume you are pinging by ip address (not by name)
any error messages when you do the route add?
also note route add is not persistant in 98 (you have to redo it on each reboot)
try tracert to see where the packets are being dropped
and please run route print and post the results here
also any firewalls installed?