Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.networking,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (
More info?)
Simon Woods wrote:
> Thanks CJT - in line
>
> CJT wrote:
>
>> Simon Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I've been having problems getting an XP/win98 dual boot machine
>>> joining my network wirelessly.
>>>
>>> See "Wireless connected - can't ping" on ms.public.win98.networking
>>>
>>> I've thought it was perhaps a problem with IRQ conflict so I've
>>> removed all expansion cards including the Wireless network card and
>>> now decided to try and configure the onboard lan. I've a spare router
>>> which I'm now plugging in directly to the lan connection of the machine.
>>>
>>> The router is acting as DHCP server.
>>>
>>> I'm finding now that the router is assigning an IP address to my machine
>>
>>
>>
>> so obviously those two are talking (which means the rudiments of
>> networking are installed and functional)
>>
>> of course, if all that's connected to the wired router is this one
>> machine, you're not going to pass much data through it <g>
>>
>>> but my machine can't ping the DHCP server.
>>
>>
>>
>> some routers (optionally) won't respond to pings for security reasons,
>> so that in itself isn't necessarily a problem -- if you're getting an
>> address from it, you must have a connection
>>
>> but many routers have setup screens accessible via a browser; you might
>> explore those
>
>
> I've tried the admin screen from IE but it can't find it - which seems
> to suggest one-way traffic --- dhcp-server => PC.
>
>>
>> It can ping itself both by
>>
>>> "ping localhost" and "ping DHCP-assigned address"
>>>
>> no problem there
>>
>>> There's nothing in the arp table (... don't know what that tells me,
>>> but I seem to think that when it has been working, there has been an
>>> entry)
>>>
>>
>> it sounds like your wireless connection isn't being established
>>
>> but you probably knew that
>>
>> have you installed the drivers for the wireless card, etc.?
>>
>> are you sure the wireless stuff works?
>>
>> when you go into My Computer -> Control Panel -> Network, is your
>> wireless card there, and bound to TCP/IP?
>>
>> are there any status lights on the wireless equipment, and what do
>> they tell you?
>
>
> Yes ... yes ... yes ... default gateway set DNS stuff set ... shimmering
> lights green on both the router and NIC when booting up then solid green.
>
> This used to work. I've had it working both with Win98 and WinXP
> wirelessly previously on this same machine --- but now it just 'won't
> take'!
>
>>> I've tried re-installing tcp/ip. (I've actually re-installed Win98
>>> about 8 times so far!!)
>>
>>
>>
>> then it's time to try something different
>>
>> I don't think the problem is with basic TCP/IP and Win98 networking --
>> that the machine will talk to the router demonstrates those are working
>
>
> I was concerned because of multiple devices sharing the same IRQ, so
> I've pulled things back to a bare minimum ... taken out all expansion
> cards, disabled in BIOS all devices which are sharing the IRQ which the
> card will use --- so I've got a pretty basic setup. I've tried disabling
> IRQ steering but no good
>
> I've also tried wireless and wired connections. The wired connection
> gives a DHCP-originated ip address which I don't get wirelessly, but
> still can't ping the router nor open it's admin screen.
>
> I'm beginning to think it must be a hardware problem, but the thing is
> that I've used the on-board lan connection for wired and an expansion
> card for wireless onto 2 different routers and the results are the same
> ... it don't work (other than for wired I get a DHCP-originated ip
> address!) which makes me think it's something basic I'm missing.
>
> I've other win98 machines on my wireless network and they work fine!
>
> ... and it used to work !!
>
> Thanks again for your help
>
> Simon
Although I don't profess to know anything about wireless, the one
bit that is present with most wireless devices that isn't present
with most wired connections is an extra layer of security -- e.g.
password protection -- since otherwise it would be so easy to tap
in uninvited. Could that be the source of the problem?
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.