Intermittent WPA connection on XP Pro SP2

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I have a new IBM R51 Thinkpad running XP Pro SP2 and an internal
Intel 2200BG WiFi adapter configured to use WPA, talking to an
Actiontec GT701 DSL router.

I'm not using XP's Wireless Zero config (service is turned off), nor
am I using the Windows firewall. I have the latest drivers and IBM
utilities installed, and the current Qwest firmware installed in the
router. When I'm testing, I'm sitting a few feet from the router and
have a solid green display on the status icon.

On boot, the wireless connection works just fine, but after a few
minutes the connection will drop.

Monitoring the interface with Ethereal, I can see the router and NIC
exchanging EAPOL frames once a minute; when the connection drops, I
see the router sending frames to me, but the NIC never responds.

If I disable and re-enable the interface, or disconnect and reconnect
using the IBM management utility, the interface will usually settle
down and work fine for as long as I care to use it.

Before I start tearing things apart, does this sound familiar to
anybody? Anything in particular I might try first

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> I have a new IBM R51 Thinkpad running XP Pro SP2 and an internal
> Intel 2200BG WiFi adapter configured to use WPA, talking to an
> Actiontec GT701 DSL router.
>
> I'm not using XP's Wireless Zero config (service is turned off), nor
> am I using the Windows firewall. I have the latest drivers and IBM
> utilities installed, and the current Qwest firmware installed in the
> router. When I'm testing, I'm sitting a few feet from the router and
> have a solid green display on the status icon.
>
> On boot, the wireless connection works just fine, but after a few
> minutes the connection will drop.
>
> Monitoring the interface with Ethereal, I can see the router and NIC
> exchanging EAPOL frames once a minute; when the connection drops, I
> see the router sending frames to me, but the NIC never responds.
>
> If I disable and re-enable the interface, or disconnect and reconnect
> using the IBM management utility, the interface will usually settle
> down and work fine for as long as I care to use it.
>
> Before I start tearing things apart, does this sound familiar to
> anybody? Anything in particular I might try first

Sounds like the 802.11x authentication disconnect.

Q
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

quaoar@tenthplanet.net (Quaoar) wrote in
news:Ed-dnTP-VIbh8sTcRVn-tA@comcast.com:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>> Before I start tearing things apart, does this sound familiar to
>> anybody? Anything in particular I might try first
>
> Sounds like the 802.11x authentication disconnect.

Wazzat?

Sounds like it's something I should be able to find somewhere, and
I'll start looking now, but it also sounds like something you know
about :)

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Are you using IBM Access Connections to manage your wireless connection? I
have had my own set of issues with that software. It is a good try and
picks up where XP leaves off for managing all network connections. I found
it to be too problematic and that I was better off managing my own
connections.

I have a T40 with the IBM a/b/g internal card. I let Windows XP SP2 manage
the card for me. It has worked very well. I have tested this in multiple
environments such as WPA EAP-TLS AES and WEP EAP-TLS.

Before uninstalling IBM Access Connections, here are some thoughts. Are you
using WPA PSK or WPA EAP-TLS? If you are using EAP-TLS with a Windows 2003
environment with IAS, do you have your machine added as part of the remote
access policy? You need to have both your user and machine defined. If it
is WPA-PSK, I am out of ideas.

Good luck and post back what you find.

Jeff


"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957254A813A9VeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
>I have a new IBM R51 Thinkpad running XP Pro SP2 and an internal
> Intel 2200BG WiFi adapter configured to use WPA, talking to an
> Actiontec GT701 DSL router.
>
> I'm not using XP's Wireless Zero config (service is turned off), nor
> am I using the Windows firewall. I have the latest drivers and IBM
> utilities installed, and the current Qwest firmware installed in the
> router. When I'm testing, I'm sitting a few feet from the router and
> have a solid green display on the status icon.
>
> On boot, the wireless connection works just fine, but after a few
> minutes the connection will drop.
>
> Monitoring the interface with Ethereal, I can see the router and NIC
> exchanging EAPOL frames once a minute; when the connection drops, I
> see the router sending frames to me, but the NIC never responds.
>
> If I disable and re-enable the interface, or disconnect and reconnect
> using the IBM management utility, the interface will usually settle
> down and work fine for as long as I care to use it.
>
> Before I start tearing things apart, does this sound familiar to
> anybody? Anything in particular I might try first
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

jdurham.outdoor.life@cinci.rr.com (Jeff Durham) wrote in
news:qvg6d.127992$787.43749@fe2.columbus.rr.com:

> Before uninstalling IBM Access Connections, here are some thoughts.
> Are you using WPA PSK or WPA EAP-TLS?

I'm using WPA PSA on an XP Pro machine.

I'll wait a bit and see if anything else pops up, but if not, I'll try
uninstalling Access Connections and trying XP's management.

On the other hand, the fact that the problem ony appears on the first
use of the day and goes away after a while suggests a hardware
problem, possibly with the NIC, that goes away after it warms up.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> quaoar@tenthplanet.net (Quaoar) wrote in
> news:Ed-dnTP-VIbh8sTcRVn-tA@comcast.com:
>
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>
>>> Before I start tearing things apart, does this sound familiar to
>>> anybody? Anything in particular I might try first
>>
>> Sounds like the 802.11x authentication disconnect.
>
> Wazzat?
>
> Sounds like it's something I should be able to find somewhere, and
> I'll start looking now, but it also sounds like something you know
> about :)

It's a checkbox Enable 802.11x Authentication. Connection properties,
Authentication tab. Also, are you broadcasting SSID? There is no
reason not to since you will eventually lock down the permitted MAC
addresses in the router, and it will stabilize some wireless cards.

Q
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> jdurham.outdoor.life@cinci.rr.com (Jeff Durham) wrote in
> news:qvg6d.127992$787.43749@fe2.columbus.rr.com:
>
>> Before uninstalling IBM Access Connections, here are some thoughts.
>> Are you using WPA PSK or WPA EAP-TLS?
>
> I'm using WPA PSA on an XP Pro machine.
>
> I'll wait a bit and see if anything else pops up, but if not, I'll try
> uninstalling Access Connections and trying XP's management.
>
> On the other hand, the fact that the problem ony appears on the first
> use of the day and goes away after a while suggests a hardware
> problem, possibly with the NIC, that goes away after it warms up.

If it goes away, then it is not an authentication issue. I wonder if it
is an interference issue? I think you are well advised to use WZC and
give up the IBM management. Be sure to disable the autostart of that in
msconfig, and then when you get things working, remove it altogether
from add/remove programs. You can access the card setup in Device
Manager anyway if you need to abandon WZC.

Q
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In news:y_mdnRzMNumzZMTcRVn-iw@comcast.com "Quaoar"
<quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote:

> I think you are well advised to use WZC and give up the IBM management.

I've seen this suggestion before, yet the folks in the IBM forums suggest
the opposite :)

I gather that earlier versions were quite terrible, but unless somebody
can say for certain that it's the cause of my problem, I'll keep it.

I will try to run without it for an evening or two at home though.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS