switch 2 networks

switch 2 networks
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 Next

Computer Forum Forum Index -> windowsxp network_web

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

server
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: switch 2 networks

message unavailable

Google
Sponsor

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: Advertisement

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: Re: switch 2 networks

On 30 Mar, 04:08, "Bisirat Amanuel" <bisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

My computer is connected to a switch (used as a router).

By the way. You can't use a switch as a router, or a router as a
switch. It's possible for something marketted as a switch, to be a
router.

Quote:

If I give my
computer a static IP I can access my switch. If I don't give my computer a
static ip, it will get it from the dhcp router behind the switch and I won't
be able to access my switch. Is there any networking settings I could set to
access both networks at the same time?

If it's truly a switch , one tends not to access a switch. It just
does its job.

There are more expensive, Cisco switches, and it's my understanding
that they have a port to connect a computer with a cable, to access a
web interface whereby the physical ports (nothing to do with virtual -
tcp- ports) can be enabled or disabled .

It sounds like you might be speaking of a Router with the DHCP server
turned off. But that'd be strange too in this instance..

It sounds like your setup is the wrong way around. Is your set up

Comp--device1---device2--wall

device2=router
device1="switch" (router with DHCP server turned off).

The answer is turn it should be the other way around!!!!!

Comp-Router1-Router2-wall

Router2 would have to be a router/modem..

Else you'd need an additional modem. (I'm in the UK. Cable modems are
all over the place, and DSL modems seem to be almost non-existant).

Router1 would have a dynamic ip, getting it from a DHCP server.
Router2 would be the DHCP server.

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: Re: FTP GET command in winXP works differently than in win2k

On 30 Mar, 19:10, NateAdmin1 <NateAdm...@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

Quote:

That would probably work, and you could do it in a script. The only downfall
is that we have hundards of scripts we use for automating ftp, and it sounds
like your approach can turn into quite a project (and that would be a one man
project, namely me). If all else fails though, I may have to use your
approach. Thanks for the help.

--
Nathan
Network Administrator
MCP in Managing and Maintaining a MS Win Server 2003 Enviroment
CCNA

How about using a different FTP client?

Have you tried putting the Win2k FTP client (ftp.exe I suppose) on Win
XP ?

or using any similar ftp client, which doesn't have this odd
behaviour, and if necessary, make any minor syntax amendments to your
scripts.

also, it's better not to "top post".
<snip>

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Router install problem

On 1 Apr, 00:06, "PaulFXH" <paulfxhack...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Hi everybody
I working right now in Brazil and have a 550 kbps broadband
connection. The internet reaches the computer through a modem at
present.
However, having recently acquired a second computer we have tried to
install a wireless router (D-Link DI-524 802.11g/2.4GHz) between the
modem
and the computer.
Although I have followed the instructions to the letter, when I get
to
do the final test, I get an error message saying the router is not
detected. After telling me to check the connection between the router
and the computer (which is not the problem), the install goes no
further than this.
Note that in my desperation, I have actually physically changed the
modem and the router and the various network cables for new versions
without at all improving the situation.
I have spoken to the ISP down here but they showed little interest in
helping me.
Any clues as to how I can resolve this?
Thanks
Paul

I don't think you need to use their software.

e.g. in the case of a Belkin wireless USB adaptor that came with a CD,
the best way for a techie at least, to install it was to insert the CD
just so windows can get the drivers. But not going through their
installation. Those that used their software happened to have
problems with crashes - according to dozens of amazon.com reviews..

Is this a Cable modem connected to a router?
Or a DSL modem?

You should get a light on on the router as soon as you connect a
computer to it. Or as soon as you connect a router to it. Do you get
that?

You can test that the cable modem is connecting. The following test
worked nicely for an NTL Cable Modem. It had a cable connector with
cable connected going to the wall, and a Socket which was Ethernet,
for a Router to connect to.
Older models had 2 modes USB or Ethernet which you set perhaps in an
interface. But newer ones can do either, or perhaps both. Whichever
you connect.

Now, to test a cable modem like that.. You can Connect the computer to
it without using the router. See if you get an internet connection
going.

If so, the modem works.

Connect the cable modem to the Router with a cable. (it needs a cable
from cable modem to wireless router always, even if it's a wireless
router. They eventually get to the wall physically Router->cable
modem(with eth port)->wall).

You should get a light come on on the router when you connect the
cable modem to it. Or when you connect a computer to it.

If not i.e. if no light,
THEN
it indicates an ethernet cable issue (not to do with cable in the
context of cable modem). It may be that you're using an RJ11 cable
instead of an RJ45. Only way to tell for sure, i think, is to count
the pins on the end of the connector. RJ45 has 8. (RJ11 has 4 or 6
i'm not sure. But not Cool

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:16 am Post subject: Re: Unreachable network from wan

On 31 Mar, 13:06, one.1m...@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Hello,
I need a simple http network. so, i tried techlogica http server, and
also KF web server one by one. After i installed it, the set the port
number in the softwares to 80. In my router i added TCP port
forwarding with the following config: private ip: 192.168.0.3 my
computers ip address, publicport:80, private port 80. if i tryhttp://127.0.0.1
it works. if i tryhttp://192.168.0.3from any of the lan computers it
works. but when i tryhttp://72.76.xx.xx, it doesnt work i get a
connection timed out error. I triied changing the private port to
60000 both in router and it the server software. then also, samething
happens.http://127.0.0.1:60000andhttp://192.168.0.3:60000work buthttp://72.76.xx.xx:60000does not work(connection timed out). I have
both cable and dsl. i tried with both of them, but neither works. what
else do i need to do?

sitting on your network and using your router's remote ip(which I
assume is your 72.76.xx.xx ip), never works!

but somebody else will be able to use it. could ask on [m]irc

i.e. what I mean is
if you have a computer acting as a web server , then when on your
network, you access it with your comp's ip (a private ip from your
router). Anybody outside your network uses your router's public ip.

I don't know why that is. It's never been a problem (since test it by
asking others). But maybe there's a setting in windows to let you
access your comp like that.. anyone?

I think i know what i've done in the past to test the web server
runs.
a)Gone to a port scan site and seen if it found port 80 or 6120 or
whatever web server port open (you may want to set the firewall to
restrict all ips except web scan site)

So i've never had to find somebody else to try the public ip. I know
it works.

OR.. maybe you can try it from your own comp,

b)I may have tried setting up a dial up connection it seems to get a
"prioritised" route in the routing table over my DSL one. And my
comp's ip becomes the dialup one. Then I think I could ping my comp
by my router's public ip. So maybe I could scan it with nmap or access
the web server..

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: Re: IP address

On 31 Mar, 13:05, "Nirjhar" <ekakianm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Hi, I'm a moderator of a community in ORKUT

How can I know the IP address of a member posting in the com ...
there are so many fakes making trouble in the com ... it would be
really helpful if we can find out if the persons we doubt have similar
IP address

Please the knowledgeable ones give reply

Thanks in advance

The technical answer, which for some reason hasn't been the VERY FIRST
answer * is to look at the post's header.

identify the good guy's header, and the bad guy's header.. Then look
for ways to block the bad guy. I've never had to do that before, but
if your job is moderator, then you are doing it manually, so shouldn't
be anything else to it!!

You may be able to set something up to analyse the headers
automatically though.

Different news clients have different ways of viewing the header.

It may be that viewing posts in google doesn't show all header detail,
i can't get to a news client at the moment! Forte is alright. If you
use outlook express, then maybe right click the post and click
properties. Forte is probably also right click and click something
like that.

It may give away their ip, or what NNTP host they are using, or not
using. It may look like mumbo jumbo to do you.. headers and values.
But, you should see patterns. Like the good guy always has this ip
over here, the bad guy has this. Or one of them doesn't have this.
e.t.c.

* not only that, but you even suggested that you wanted a technical
answer.. I hope somebody more technical than I can assist..

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: Re: for chuck (regarding your style)

On 1 Apr, 05:25, Chuck <n...@example.net> wrote:

Quote:

On 31 Mar 2007 16:27:42 -0700, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 31 Mar, 22:57, Chuck <n...@example.net> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2007 13:06:44 -0700, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 31 Mar, 07:23, Chuck <n...@example.net> wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 10:22:46 -0700, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
By only ever linking people to results on your website, you are making
people very dependent on you and your material. I don't think that's
fair to the technical community.

No other experts or MVPs do that. Hence, they cater to both novice
end users, and the technical community.

It's a shame, because when you answer a thread, another expert may
choose not to, and so all we get is your material.

I see you want to advertise your skills/services "PC Chuck's network".
It wouldn't be a bad idea to set up your own google group!
You may well have many customers. .

Hi James,

It is awfully hard to provide answers that appeal to everybody here, yet provide
effective solutions. That's why some folks here use hypertext, rather than flat
files (all detail in posts), in helping. Windows Networking is a very deep
subject, with hundreds of possible problems. Sometimes the problems stem from
someone buying their computer at Walmart (and I shop there too), but we try to
go beyond that and help teach the Walmart shoppers.

This forum, like many busy ones on the Internet, is very large. Not one person
here knows all of the answers. Typically, many people help provide the answers,
and learn from each other as they do. And when one person gives a bogus
(intentionally or otherwise) answer, the folks who know the answer don't let a
bogus answer stand very long.

I started my blog long ago, purely as notes which I would copy and paste into my
responses here. Then I realised that my notes all related to each other, so I
hyper linked everything, which made it hard to copy and paste effectively. Then
I found people reading my blog.

If I've offended you, I apologise. This brings to mind the story about the old
man and his son taking their donkey to sell at the village market, a story which
I did use in one of my blog articles, but you don't want to read that. How to
transport the donkey was a question with many answers, none of which pleased all
of the neighbours watching the trio, and none of the three made it alive to the
market. That is an Aesop's fable, I believe, which you may Google at your
leisure.

--

Your site is targetted at solving problems(which may well help you
too), but provides watered down explanations of technical concepts.
Heavily watered down versions of your own understanding , not written
for yourself or for technical people.

You of course, understand the concepts, and you gained an
understanding of networks from some sources, yet your website has no
references e.g. to help others understand.

Your site and service here helps people solve problems, but doesn't
help them to understand them. Yet It pretends to.

I have tried reading some of your posts, and it reminds me of when
people look for all their answers on Gibson's site. I don't want to
compare you to Gibson, he is evil. But, don't you see a similarity?
He is another person that offers watered down explanations, not for a
technical audience, and really stunts the development of his readers.
Sure though, he helps a lot of people, whilst making people very
dependent on him - in a way others don't.

OK, James, if there is a question asked here, and you know the answer, you are
perfectly entitled to answer it. In any way that you see fit. This is an open
forum.

Maybe you have better answers, that's how we learn anyway.

We'll look forward to your learned comments.

Probably not, since I don't know about much about networking. Of
course, that doesn't invalidate my point.

OK, it's good that you can admit that you don't know much about networking. And
what you probably don't know here is that this forum isn't always about
networking - it's about the people who use networking, and figuring out their
problems.

You're avoiding the issue.

What do you think of my comparison of your site to Steve Gibson's ?

How about helping them figure out their problems. So if they have a
misconception, then correct it. It doesn't seem to be a priority in
this newsgroup. I noticed that in one thread, one person whose posts I
haven't seen regularly, was great, to point out to a poster that a
switch wasn't a router.
That was one out of about 20 posts, of which i think the first 15 or
so didn't tell the guy! Either they don't know. Or they don't care
that people are technically informed or worse, misinformed. And if a
person responding doesn't know something technical, they should ask. I
notice that doesn't happen much either. A lot of people here seem to
want to solve the problem, but have no interest in having a good
understanding of the subject that the problem resides in. Which is
strange because it'd really help to solve it!!

You will try to avoid it again and say that I SHOULD RESPOND. Well I
have made a few posts. But the point is not that everybody should
respond. And if I see the post and I know, then I will. But I don't
*demand* it of those that know. My point is that IF PEOPLE RESPOND,
and people do, then they should correct misconceptions. It's obvious,
understanding the ISSUES are important. Not just the problem at hand.
But to solve the problem, and other user's problems, it's important
not to have misconceptions

Quote:

And that's why the answers - that are too basic for your learned experience
(which you admit is low) - involve more than simple networking concepts. And
that's why my website is focused on very basic concepts, and simple problems.

If the concepts you write of are "basic networking concepts". Then you
wouldn't need such watered down explanations.

You seem to consistently run around the point.

Quote:

And now, a reminder. Malke called (implied) the troll in her post. If you're
playing the first game, you get zero points. If you're playing the second, I
call the troll again. No more troll points here, so move along.

what a suprise.

You're just upset that you help so many people and you can't take
criticism. Constructive or otherwise.

So you avoid my point. You're not a troll. I expected you to be
initially polite, then to try to get rid of me by calling me a troll,
then to skirt around the issue.
Not because you're a bad character, it's just a typical aspect of
human nature. Your brain is just working to avoid what you don't want
to hear 'cos it's criticism.

PaulFXH
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Re: Router install problem

On 1 abr, 08:07, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"
<jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

On 1 Apr, 00:06, "PaulFXH" <paulfxhack...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everybody
I working right now in Brazil and have a 550 kbps broadband
connection. The internet reaches the computer through a modem at
present.
However, having recently acquired a second computer we have tried to
install a wireless router (D-Link DI-524 802.11g/2.4GHz) between the
modem
and the computer.
Although I have followed the instructions to the letter, when I get
to
do the final test, I get an error message saying the router is not
detected. After telling me to check the connection between the router
and the computer (which is not the problem), the install goes no
further than this.
Note that in my desperation, I have actually physically changed the
modem and the router and the various network cables for new versions
without at all improving the situation.
I have spoken to the ISP down here but they showed little interest in
helping me.
Any clues as to how I can resolve this?
Thanks
Paul

I don't think you need to use their software.

e.g. in the case of a Belkin wireless USB adaptor that came with a CD,
the best way for a techie at least, to install it was to insert the CD
just so windows can get the drivers. But not going through their
installation. Those that used their software happened to have
problems with crashes - according to dozens of amazon.com reviews..

Is this a Cable modem connected to a router?
Or a DSL modem?

You should get a light on on the router as soon as you connect a
computer to it. Or as soon as you connect a router to it. Do you get
that?

You can test that the cable modem is connecting. The following test
worked nicely for an NTL Cable Modem. It had a cable connector with
cable connected going to the wall, and a Socket which was Ethernet,
for a Router to connect to.
Older models had 2 modes USB or Ethernet which you set perhaps in an
interface. But newer ones can do either, or perhaps both. Whichever
you connect.

Now, to test a cable modem like that.. You can Connect the computer to
it without using the router. See if you get an internet connection
going.

If so, the modem works.

Connect the cable modem to the Router with a cable. (it needs a cable
from cable modem to wireless router always, even if it's a wireless
router. They eventually get to the wall physically Router->cable
modem(with eth port)->wall).

You should get a light come on on the router when you connect the
cable modem to it. Or when you connect a computer to it.

If not i.e. if no light,
THEN
it indicates an ethernet cable issue (not to do with cable in the
context of cable modem). It may be that you're using an RJ11 cable
instead of an RJ45. Only way to tell for sure, i think, is to count
the pins on the end of the connector. RJ45 has 8. (RJ11 has 4 or 6
i'm not sure. But not Cool

Thanks to everybody for the replies.
Looks like I need to supply some more details on my setup so here
goes:

I have a Speed Stream 5200 modem supplied by the ISP. This works
perfectly receiving DSL internet from a phone line and sending this
through a network cable to VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter on a
Desktop computer.
The broadband is not fast (550 kbps) but is fine for what we need.
When in operation, the modem has lights marked Power, DSL and ENET
lit.
The router is a D-Link DI-524 which I installed exactly as instructed.
So I have Phone Line (DSL) ->Modem->Router->Network Card on Desktop
computer.
The three lights (as mentioned above) on the modem remain lit. The
router has the following five (5) lights either lit or blinking:
Power, Status, WAN, WLAN, 1.
The network cables I am using are marked TYPE CM 75°C (UL) E188630
(folowed by a bunch of other stuff that I can supply if anybody thinks
it's relevant). The cable seems to have eight pins which therefore
seems to make it an RJ45.
However, I still get the an error message stating that No Router is
Detected and no internet connection is available on the desktop when
the router is inserted between the modem and the computer.
Note that because of this, I have not been able to check the wireless
connection to the laptop (HP pavilion dv 1000).
I hope this provides the information requested by those who have
replied to my first post.
Thanks
Paul

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Router install problem

On 1 Apr, 14:04, "PaulFXH" <paulfxhack...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On 1 abr, 08:07, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 Apr, 00:06, "PaulFXH" <paulfxhack...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everybody
I working right now in Brazil and have a 550 kbps broadband
connection. The internet reaches the computer through a modem at
present.
However, having recently acquired a second computer we have tried to
install a wireless router (D-Link DI-524 802.11g/2.4GHz) between the
modem
and the computer.
Although I have followed the instructions to the letter, when I get
to
do the final test, I get an error message saying the router is not
detected. After telling me to check the connection between the router
and the computer (which is not the problem), the install goes no
further than this.
Note that in my desperation, I have actually physically changed the
modem and the router and the various network cables for new versions
without at all improving the situation.
I have spoken to the ISP down here but they showed little interest in
helping me.
Any clues as to how I can resolve this?
Thanks
Paul

I don't think you need to use their software.

e.g. in the case of a Belkin wireless USB adaptor that came with a CD,
the best way for a techie at least, to install it was to insert the CD
just so windows can get the drivers. But not going through their
installation. Those that used their software happened to have
problems with crashes - according to dozens of amazon.com reviews..

Is this a Cable modem connected to a router?
Or a DSL modem?

You should get a light on on the router as soon as you connect a
computer to it. Or as soon as you connect a router to it. Do you get
that?

You can test that the cable modem is connecting. The following test
worked nicely for an NTL Cable Modem. It had a cable connector with
cable connected going to the wall, and a Socket which was Ethernet,
for a Router to connect to.
Older models had 2 modes USB or Ethernet which you set perhaps in an
interface. But newer ones can do either, or perhaps both. Whichever
you connect.

Now, to test a cable modem like that.. You can Connect the computer to
it without using the router. See if you get an internet connection
going.

If so, the modem works.

Connect the cable modem to the Router with a cable. (it needs a cable
from cable modem to wireless router always, even if it's a wireless
router. They eventually get to the wall physically Router->cable
modem(with eth port)->wall).

You should get a light come on on the router when you connect the
cable modem to it. Or when you connect a computer to it.

If not i.e. if no light,
THEN
it indicates an ethernet cable issue (not to do with cable in the
context of cable modem). It may be that you're using an RJ11 cable
instead of an RJ45. Only way to tell for sure, i think, is to count
the pins on the end of the connector. RJ45 has 8. (RJ11 has 4 or 6
i'm not sure. But not Cool

. Maybe see google images.
It may be that your ethernet cable is broken. Try a different cable
that you've tested and know works.

Though you say you've checked the cables. So i'd expect a light !
Indicating that the router sees the modem.

Make sure you connected the computer to a computer port and modem to
modem port, on the router.
the modem/Internet/WAN port on the cable modem is different to the
others. And is not an RJ11 port, even though it may looks like it.
Similarly, I once saw an RJ11 cable that was thick like an RJ45! The
only giveaway was the pins firstly, and perhaps the fact that the
cover was sort of transparent which was not normal for an ethernet
cable.

I've gone on a ramble about cables though it's probably not the
problem. Check the light.. If a light, it (prob?) isn't a cable
problem.

I actually have only ever set up one of these cable modem, wireless
router setups!

Thanks to everybody for the replies.
Looks like I need to supply some more details on my setup so here
goes:

I have a Speed Stream 5200 modem supplied by the ISP. This works
perfectly receiving DSL internet from a phone line and sending this
through a network cable to VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter on a
Desktop computer.
The broadband is not fast (550 kbps) but is fine for what we need.
When in operation, the modem has lights marked Power, DSL and ENET
lit.
The router is a D-Link DI-524 which I installed exactly as instructed.
So I have Phone Line (DSL) ->Modem->Router->Network Card on Desktop
computer.
The three lights (as mentioned above) on the modem remain lit. The
router has the following five (5) lights either lit or blinking:
Power, Status, WAN, WLAN, 1.
The network cables I am using are marked TYPE CM 75°C (UL) E188630
(folowed by a bunch of other stuff that I can supply if anybody thinks
it's relevant). The cable seems to have eight pins which therefore
seems to make it an RJ45.
However, I still get the an error message stating that No Router is
Detected and no internet connection is available on the desktop when
the router is inserted between the modem and the computer.
Note that because of this, I have not been able to check the wireless
connection to the laptop (HP pavilion dv 1000).
I hope this provides the information requested by those who have
replied to my first post.
Thanks
Paul-

Funnily enough I haven't seen a plain DSL modem.

can you connect comp to modem . Instead of comp to router to modem ?

If we ascertain that you can do that.. I usually after connecting my
comp to a router, type "arp -a" on the comp and get the router's
private ip listed, then I http to its interface. I think arp -a shold
work anyway.

With a cable modem, it actually had a label on this warning of it...
If problems or change of configuration, it advised to..

turn off usb cable modem and router.
turn on cable modem.
wait for lights to stabilise.
wait 10 seconds
turn on router. (wait for router lights to stabilise too).

I found that sometimes doing arp -a after that got the ip.

So, that rebooting of a modem and router in that order, in that way,
may apply to DSL too

You may have noticed, some ask for more information (just an
information dump kind of thing as is unfortunately the culture here).
But I don't do that.

I just gave you some IFs.. and asked for feedback on ertain things.
e.g. I asked you if there was a light, and then told you what I know
of the meaning of if there is or isn't. So the information is there
in the post and i'm not hiding any of the analysis. I think this is
best for techies to share knowledge. Or newbies to build knowledge.
This is a technical community. Most people here no more than me, but
their understanding of good style is very poor. Even when they post a
useful thing, they can't distinguish it from a less useful post of
theirs.

Back to the point. Try connecting the comp to the modem directly. Is
that possible? Doesn't the modem have an ethernet/RJ45 port that you
used to connect the router to it?

I think there's possibly an interesting distinction here.. A router's
WAN port (an RJ45/ethernet port which stands alone from the other RJ45
ports) isn't meant to take a computer. It takes a modem, and i'm not
sure what else. It's for the internet end. But a Modem's ethernet
port, can take a computer or a router.
that's my experience. I welcome corrections.

And since i'm writing in the body of the post, people can intersperse
their comments into mine. (I brought up this issue in another recent
post ). Though i'm not against hyperlinks per se, I include them
myself sometimes with good reason.

I'm going on holiday soon.. so if anybody thinks "arrogant james
hanley is answering let's see how he goes".. FIRSTLY, that's bad
philosophy, this is a technical community and we should share
knowledge SECONDLY it'd be selfish to the OP. THIRDLY i'm going on
holiday soon.

Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: 2 isp's Terminal Services access

Elliott <elichtstein@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I have a network with a Win 2003 server running Terminal Services Lan
IP 192.168.50.5).

Access to Internet is through two routers, one (Lan IP 192.168.50.100)
from T1 access and the other (Lan IP 192.168.50.9 Cool

by cable modem.

Both routers have NAT and forward port 3389 to the Win Terminal Server
(192.168.50.5)

Access only works from the T1 router ( because the default gateway on
the server points to 192.168.50.100). I there any way to achieve
access to the Terminal Server from both internet gateways?

I suspect I will need to forward traffic from 192.168.50.98 to
192.168.50.100 on the LAN but my router won't forward specific ports
from LAN to LAN.

Any suggestions or help?

thanks

Elliott

Hi, Elliott - this is a group for Windows XP networking issues (not the best
group for your question....)

That said, your ability to get *into* a TS box from the Internet has nothing
to do with a default gateway set on the server (or any host machine) itself.
The default gateway controls that server's *outbound* connectivity to the
Internet. So, something else is clearly wrong.
Your two routers don't have to know anything about each other. If you have
router1 and router2, and each is set up to forward TCP 3389 fromWAN to
192.168.50.5, you shouldn't have any problems getting to that box from the
Internet on either connection's public IP (or FQDN established for same).
You might try posting in m.p.windows.server.networking for more specific
help, and provide the exact setup & errors you get....I don't think this
really has anything to do with Terminal Services itself.

Also (veering a bit off topic), I'm not sure what your specific reason is
for having two Internet connections/circuits, but you would probably be
better off getting a router or firewall with two WAN interfaces, that can do
load balancing/failover automatically....check out Sonicwalls running the
EnhancedOS or some Cisco kit.

Jay Caplan
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: Spurious "Network Connections" Dialog Box

This is a brand new Thinkpad laptop with an integrated ethernet NIC. There is
NO other evidence of loss of network connectivity. This user never has a
problem accessing the network or the file shares on it. Whenever they dismiss
the spurious "Network Connections" dialog, they can continue just fine.

However, it wouldn't hurt to try another cable connection. I would welcome
any other ideas on troubleshooting this.

"Scott" wrote:

Quote:

"Jay Caplan" <JayCaplan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3A5558D1-E061-4CD2-AA44-6C585718491B@microsoft.com...
I have a user with a Thinkpad running WinXP SP2. They are connected to our
LAN with an ethernet cable. Periodically, when they are browsing the
Internet, they will get a "Network Connections" Dialog Box prompting them
to
"Choose a network connection" which shows them the Dial-Up and VPN
connections that have been defined. If they simply close this Dialog Box
without selecting anything, they can continue to access the Internet just
fine. There is no other evidence of any Internet
connectivity problems.

I have tried to stop this behaviour by going into Internet Options -
Connections, and specify "Never dial a connection".' I went a step further
and "locked" this setting into place by using the Group Policy editor to
manage that computer's Local Computer Policy and enabling the setting for
"Disable changing connection settings" (found in Console Root\Local
Computer
Policy\User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows
Components\Internet Explorer).

Whenever I go to troubleshoot this and examine Internet Options -
Connections - I see that "never dial a connection" is still checked off,
and
in fact this whole screen is grayed out, as would be expected by
applying the Group Policy setting described above.

How do I stop these annoying and spurious "Choose a network connection"
prompts?

Maybe try a new cable and network card.
Good luck. Scott

Bisirat Amanuel
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: switch 2 networks

Well, strange or not I have a router with dhcp turned off, so it is
funcitioning like a switch. But I don't see the difference between your
diagrams, they are both Comp-->Router1-->Router2-->wall. Anyway the way I
have my setup is Comp--->switch--->Router--->Internet.

<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175423415.628629.55380@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

On 30 Mar, 04:08, "Bisirat Amanuel" <bisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My computer is connected to a switch (used as a router).

By the way. You can't use a switch as a router, or a router as a
switch. It's possible for something marketted as a switch, to be a
router.

If I give my
computer a static IP I can access my switch. If I don't give my computer
a
static ip, it will get it from the dhcp router behind the switch and I
won't
be able to access my switch. Is there any networking settings I could set
to
access both networks at the same time?

If it's truly a switch , one tends not to access a switch. It just
does its job.

There are more expensive, Cisco switches, and it's my understanding
that they have a port to connect a computer with a cable, to access a
web interface whereby the physical ports (nothing to do with virtual -
tcp- ports) can be enabled or disabled .

It sounds like you might be speaking of a Router with the DHCP server
turned off. But that'd be strange too in this instance..

It sounds like your setup is the wrong way around. Is your set up

Comp--device1---device2--wall

device2=router
device1="switch" (router with DHCP server turned off).

The answer is turn it should be the other way around!!!!!

Comp-Router1-Router2-wall

Router2 would have to be a router/modem..

Else you'd need an additional modem. (I'm in the UK. Cable modems are
all over the place, and DSL modems seem to be almost non-existant).

Router1 would have a dynamic ip, getting it from a DHCP server.
Router2 would be the DHCP server.

Bisirat Amanuel
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Router install problem

Since the internet works without the router, try resetting the router(paper
clip or pin). Also make sure the modem is connected to the wan port of the
router using cat5(doesn't matter if it's crossover). Look at the leds and
check if the wan light comes on.

Now connect the computer to the router lan port using cat5 cable. Since the
computer worked with the modem I'm guessing dhcp configured properly on it.
Go to http://192.168.0.1
username: admin
password: [blank]

now you can configure your wireless connection. Also don't install the
software given to you, all it does is take up space on our PC. If it hasn't
worked please supply the revision number:
http://www.dlink.com/products/support.asp?pid=316&sec=0#manual

"PaulFXH" <paulfxhackett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175432644.335816.164440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 1 abr, 08:07, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"
<jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Bisirat Amanuel
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: for chuck (regarding your style)

People post here to solve their problems not to learn why and how. But if
they do want to know why and how the problem is solved they can ask for
clarification. I doubt there are people here that complain Chuck solved
their problem but he didn't teach them in the process.

"Chuck" <none@example.net> wrote in message
news:i4eu03hc1d2a44eh12m1b8qdp5o32au6fs@4ax.com...

Quote:

On 31 Mar 2007 16:27:42 -0700, "jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk"
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 31 Mar, 22:57, Chuck <n...@example.net> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2007 13:06:44 -0700, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 31 Mar, 07:23, Chuck <n...@example.net> wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 10:22:46 -0700, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
By only ever linking people to results on your website, you are
making
people very dependent on you and your material. I don't think that's
fair to the technical community.

No other experts or MVPs do that. Hence, they cater to both novice
end users, and the technical community.

It's a shame, because when you answer a thread, another expert may
choose not to, and so all we get is your material.

I see you want to advertise your skills/services "PC Chuck's
network".
It wouldn't be a bad idea to set up your own google group!
You may well have many customers. .

Hi James,

It is awfully hard to provide answers that appeal to everybody here,
yet provide
effective solutions. That's why some folks here use hypertext,
rather than flat
files (all detail in posts), in helping. Windows Networking is a
very deep
subject, with hundreds of possible problems. Sometimes the problems
stem from
someone buying their computer at Walmart (and I shop there too), but
we try to
go beyond that and help teach the Walmart shoppers.

This forum, like many busy ones on the Internet, is very large. Not
one person
here knows all of the answers. Typically, many people help provide
the answers,
and learn from each other as they do. And when one person gives a
bogus
(intentionally or otherwise) answer, the folks who know the answer
don't let a
bogus answer stand very long.

I started my blog long ago, purely as notes which I would copy and
paste into my
responses here. Then I realised that my notes all related to each
other, so I
hyper linked everything, which made it hard to copy and paste
effectively. Then
I found people reading my blog.

If I've offended you, I apologise. This brings to mind the story
about the old
man and his son taking their donkey to sell at the village market, a
story which
I did use in one of my blog articles, but you don't want to read
that. How to
transport the donkey was a question with many answers, none of which
pleased all
of the neighbours watching the trio, and none of the three made it
alive to the
market. That is an Aesop's fable, I believe, which you may Google at
your
leisure.

--

Your site is targetted at solving problems(which may well help you
too), but provides watered down explanations of technical concepts.
Heavily watered down versions of your own understanding , not written
for yourself or for technical people.

You of course, understand the concepts, and you gained an
understanding of networks from some sources, yet your website has no
references e.g. to help others understand.

Your site and service here helps people solve problems, but doesn't
help them to understand them. Yet It pretends to.

I have tried reading some of your posts, and it reminds me of when
people look for all their answers on Gibson's site. I don't want to
compare you to Gibson, he is evil. But, don't you see a similarity?
He is another person that offers watered down explanations, not for a
technical audience, and really stunts the development of his readers.
Sure though, he helps a lot of people, whilst making people very
dependent on him - in a way others don't.

OK, James, if there is a question asked here, and you know the answer,
you are
perfectly entitled to answer it. In any way that you see fit. This is
an open
forum.

Maybe you have better answers, that's how we learn anyway.

We'll look forward to your learned comments.

Probably not, since I don't know about much about networking. Of
course, that doesn't invalidate my point.

OK, it's good that you can admit that you don't know much about
networking. And
what you probably don't know here is that this forum isn't always about
networking - it's about the people who use networking, and figuring out
their
problems.

And that's why the answers - that are too basic for your learned
experience
(which you admit is low) - involve more than simple networking concepts.
And
that's why my website is focused on very basic concepts, and simple
problems.

And now, a reminder. Malke called the troll in her post. No troll points
here,
so move along. (Sorry, Malke).

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.

PaulFXH
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: Router install problem

On Apr 1, 2:44 pm, "Bisirat Amanuel" <bisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Yes, the internet works perfectly without the router. I reset the
router various times as you suggested after it had been hooked up (as
it has been since I started this rigmarole 3 days ago, which is
exactly according to D-Links instructions and as you suggested above).
And yes, the WAN does, and has always, come on.

Quote:

Now connect the computer to the router lan port using cat5 cable. Since the
computer worked with the modem I'm guessing dhcp configured properly on it.
Go tohttp://192.168.0.1
Yes, I did this again, but problem is I just have no Internet

connection when I do this. Therefore I cannot go the address you
mentioned unless I bypass the router.
The computer keeps trying to connect to the incoming broadband but
gives a 678 error complaining that the remote computer does not
respond.
Somebody else mentioned to me that because the modem has internal NAT
enabled (IP address = 192.168.0.1) this is going to make a connection
from the router to the computer difficult.
However, I have absolutely no idea how to circumvent this problem.

Quote:

username: admin
password: [blank]

now you can configure your wireless connection. Also don't install the
software given to you, all it does is take up space on our PC. If it hasn't
worked please supply the revision number:http://www.dlink.com/products/support.asp?pid=316&sec=0#manual

Quote:

"PaulFXH" <paulfxhack...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175432644.335816.164440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 1 abr, 08:07, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"

jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 Apr, 00:06, "PaulFXH" <paulfxhack...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everybody
I working right now in Brazil and have a 550 kbps broadband
connection. The internet reaches the computer through a modem at
present.
However, having recently acquired a second computer we have tried to
install a wireless router (D-Link DI-524 802.11g/2.4GHz) between the
modem
and the computer.
Although I have followed the instructions to the letter, when I get
to
do the final test, I get an error message saying the router is not
detected. After telling me to check the connection between the router
and the computer (which is not the problem), the install goes no
further than this.
Note that in my desperation, I have actually physically changed the
modem and the router and the various network cables for new versions
without at all improving the situation.
I have spoken to the ISP down here but they showed little interest in
helping me.
Any clues as to how I can resolve this?
Thanks
Paul

I don't think you need to use their software.

e.g. in the case of a Belkin wireless USB adaptor that came with a CD,
the best way for a techie at least, to install it was to insert the CD
just so windows can get the drivers. But not going through their
installation. Those that used their software happened to have
problems with crashes - according to dozens of amazon.com reviews..

Is this a Cable modem connected to a router?
Or a DSL modem?

You should get a light on on the router as soon as you connect a
computer to it. Or as soon as you connect a router to it. Do you get
that?

You can test that the cable modem is connecting. The following test
worked nicely for an NTL Cable Modem. It had a cable connector with
cable connected going to the wall, and a Socket which was Ethernet,
for a Router to connect to.
Older models had 2 modes USB or Ethernet which you set perhaps in an
interface. But newer ones can do either, or perhaps both. Whichever
you connect.

Now, to test a cable modem like that.. You can Connect the computer to
it without using the router. See if you get an internet connection
going.

If so, the modem works.

Connect the cable modem to the Router with a cable. (it needs a cable
from cable modem to wireless router always, even if it's a wireless
router. They eventually get to the wall physically Router->cable
modem(with eth port)->wall).

You should get a light come on on the router when you connect the
cable modem to it. Or when you connect a computer to it.

If not i.e. if no light,
THEN
it indicates an ethernet cable issue (not to do with cable in the
context of cable modem). It may be that you're using an RJ11 cable
instead of an RJ45. Only way to tell for sure, i think, is to count
the pins on the end of the connector. RJ45 has 8. (RJ11 has 4 or 6
i'm not sure. But not Cool

Display posts from previous:

	Computer Forum Forum Index -> windowsxp network_web	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 Next
Page 1 of 27

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum