Wireless / Wired sharing issue 3

[realm174]

Howdy!

I'm having a problem. First, let me describe how the lan is hooked up here...

                       Internet
                           |
                          Hub  (192.168.0.1)
                         / |                         /  |                         /   |              (192.168.0.101) |             Wired Computer A  |                                |                        (192.168.0.102)                   Wired Computer B                                       |
                                (192.168.0.103)
                                 Wireless Computer C
                                 has an extra network
                                 card, wired to
                                    |
                                    |
                                (192.168.0.104)
                                 Wired computer C

Operating systems:
Computer A: Win98
Computer B: Win XP
Computer C: Win XP
Computer D: Redhat 8

I should specify that C and D are on a different floor, where they can not be wired to the rest of the computers.

So now... everyone but D can see the internet. Everyone but D can see each other, only C can see D. D can only see C.

I have tried with Winroute on C to share the connection. I figured D would be able to see everybody else, including the internet. No success.

I tried XP's internet sharing, which made the IP's change a little (the shared connection has to be 192.168.0.1, which was the hub's ip) and I got exactly the same result. as without the shared connection.

Other than drilling a hole to run a wire between the 2 floors, and without buying another wireless card, anything else I should try first?

Thanks in advance!!



Cheers,

Realm174

 

[John Lewis]

This should be possible.

You need computer C to act as a router between two separate networks -- one connected to your hub (which I assume is a NAT enabled router?), the other being computers C and D.

In order for routing to take place, you need to have the networks on separate subnets. You don't mention a second address for computer C, but if it has two cards, need to ip's. The 'wired' card connected to D should have a different network address than the wired one connected to the other network. I would set it to 192.168.2.103. You would need to change D to 192.168.2.104. Results would be something like this:


Internet
|
/ \ Hub (192.168.0.1)
| / | | / | | / | | (192.168.0.101) | | Wired Computer A | This is network | 192.168.0 (192.168.0.102) | Wired Computer B | |
| (192.168.0.103)
\ / Wireless Computer C
/ \ has an extra network
| card, wired to
| (192.168.2.103)
This is network |
192.168.2 |
| (192.168.2.104)
| Wired computer D
\ /

You should now have two separate, routable networks. You will need to turn ip forwarding on so the XP machine (C) can act as a router. See

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315236

.

The Redhat box will need to have it's default gateway set to the ip of the NIC it is connected to in computer C -- 192.168.2.103 in the example.

All should fly now, assuming the router that is doing NAT is able to deal with translating an address from another subnet. Most newer boxes do, many older ones don't. Good luck, and post back if you have any further questions/problems or need to vent.

 

[MattWray]

From what I see, C would have to be Win2k server and set up as a router. I don't believe XP can act as a router. You should make the LAN 2 networks. Machines A, B, and NIC 1 on C should be 192.168.0.x and NIC 2 and D should be 192.168.1.x. Then set up 2 static routes. One to 0.0.0.0 out the Internet connection and one to 192.168.0.x out NIC 1 on C...

Thanks,

Matt Wray
MCSE, MCSA, MCP, CCNA

http://www.sss-steel.com

 

[MattWray]

Posted at the same time,

Thanks,

Matt Wray
MCSE, MCSA, MCP, CCNA

http://www.sss-steel.com

 

[MattWray]

And apparently XP can be a router...

Thanks,

Matt Wray
MCSE, MCSA, MCP, CCNA

http://www.sss-steel.com

 

[bcastner]

You need to enable TCP/IP forwarding on machine C:

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...port/kb/articles/q315/2/36.asp&NoWebContent=1

As it is likely both C and D have ethernet adapters, I would use the wireless adapter in C as a bridge, and connect the two computers together directly, or through a switch. This would keep them on the same subnet.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/crawford/02april22.asp

 

[realm174]

mhkwood: Actually, I did mention the address for the second nic on computer C, but I completely forgot computer D, which as you can guess, is .105
I also did not realize I would have to use a different group of ip... I thought they could all be 192.168.0.x. I'm assuming they should all be on subnet 255.255.255.0? But I'll go and try your setup... One other thing I guess I should have mentionned. C & D are "linked" through a hub... but maybe that's not necessary.. I used that as there's a little too much physical distance between the 2 computers, and my wire wasn't long enough to reach... so I though I could use the hub to link them...

mattwray: I personally don't feel much for XP, but computer C is a Sony Vaio which came with XP, and I was unsuccessful in setting up any other operating systems on it as it couldn't find the drivers for half the crap that's in it...

bcastner: thanks for the links, I'll have some reading to do until I get my head around all of this...



Cheers,

Realm174

 

[John Lewis]

Quick IP lesson. The subnet mask simply indicates which part of the address is the network identifier. With 255.255.255.0, the network portion is 192.168.0, and the last part indicates a specific computer on that network. If the mask were 255.255.0.0, then the network identifier would be 192.168, and the last two numbers would identify the specific computer. Hope that's as clear as mud.

Any time you have two separate physical networks, you should use different network addresses to allow traffic to be routed between them. Because computer D is not directly connected to computers A and B, it is on a separate physical network. Computer C has one adapter that is on each of your physical networks, which makes it capable of routing traffic between the two networks. Again, hope it's clear.

You could connect C and D directly without a hub, but you would need a crossover cable instead of the standard cable. The hub shouldn't hurt anything, so I would leave it as is.

On another note, I would skip the bridge. Defining the networks and enabling forwarding on C should get you what you need. The disadvantage of the bridge is that it sends all traffic on the A-B-C network to the C-D network. If someone is surfing on computer A, all of their data will be transmitted to the across the slower wireless connection and on to the C-D network for no reason.

 

[bcastner]

mhkwood,

"On another note, I would skip the bridge. Defining the networks and enabling forwarding on C should get you what you need. The disadvantage of the bridge is that it sends all traffic on the A-B-C network to the C-D network. If someone is surfing on computer A, all of their data will be transmitted to the across the slower wireless connection and on to the C-D network for no reason. "

This is simply not true. The connection is acting more as a brouter.
Stick ethereal on the link and you will see.

 

[bcastner]

Now if the complain was that it sent all C-D traffic to A-B I think you would have a point, as the wireless adapter would operate in promiscuous mode.

But this would be no different than the hub you suggested they could use above.

 

[realm174]

Well, good news guys, it works. I didn't use XP's internet sharing as it would have meant reconfiguring the router, so I'm using winroute and it works just fine. The only thing I have to figure out now is why the wireless loses its connection repeatedly... (on for 15 seconds, off for 2-3 seconds, back on, back off, etc...) but that's not an issue for this forum...

Thanks all for the help!!



Cheers,

Realm174

 

[bcastner]

.Disable 802.1x authentication on the client.

If the client is XP:
.Remove the Q815495 Hotfix from the client, if Windows XP
.Make certain broadcast SSID is enabled
.Make sure the AP is listed as a preferred network

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;313242

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;821400

Check for compatability with Wireless Zero Configuration Service:

http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q302088

 

[realm174]

bcastner: This is awesome, the first link you provided fixed my problem. At least, that's what it looks like so far... I'll monitor this for a while, but as it seems now, it's a steady connection with a continuous 81% signal strength. Thanks buddy!



Cheers,

Realm174

 

[bcastner]

Realm74,

Excellent.

mhkwood was making very good points but I think he was confusing subnets for what is essentially the need for a mixed media connection on a single network segment.