I have been trying to mount on fedora a shared C drive from a windows machine running winxp.
Well, I used the mount command:
# mount -t cifs //xp1/c -o user=jd,password=mypassword,uid=myuid,gid=mygid,rw /mnt/xp1/c
Unable to find suitable address.
I checked the firewall setting on the xp machine and it allows pings, and printer and file sharing. C drive is shared as resource name C.
There is also a win7 machine on the LAN.
I can ping win7 and win7 can ping fedora. But neither fedora not win7 can ping xp1. I was hoping that someone has encountered this problem and solved it.
On 05/24/2011 06:57 PM, JD wrote:
I have been trying to mount on fedora a shared C drive from a windows machine running winxp.
Well, I used the mount command:
# mount -t cifs //xp1/c -o user=jd,password=mypassword,uid=myuid,gid=mygid,rw /mnt/xp1/c
Unable to find suitable address.
Does "xp1" have an IP address?
If yes, does Fedora know about it?
I checked the firewall setting on the xp machine and it allows pings, and printer and file sharing. C drive is shared as resource name C.
There is also a win7 machine on the LAN.
I can ping win7 and win7 can ping fedora. But neither fedora not win7 can ping xp1. I was hoping that someone has encountered this problem and solved it.
Can the XP machine successfully ping either win7 or fedora?
I'd start by comparing IP addresses on all three machines and checking to see that they all think they are on the "same" network.
Second I'd check the routing tables on all 3 machines to ensure that they are all consistent.
Can all 3 machines get to the internet (though what I am guessing is a common router)?
On 05/24/11 18:45, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 05/24/2011 06:57 PM, JD wrote:
I have been trying to mount on fedora a shared C drive from a windows machine running winxp.
Well, I used the mount command:
# mount -t cifs //xp1/c -o user=jd,password=mypassword,uid=myuid,gid=mygid,rw /mnt/xp1/c
Unable to find suitable address.
Does "xp1" have an IP address?
If yes, does Fedora know about it?
xp1 and win7 are both listed in /etc/hosts. So yes, they have IP addresses :) :)
Can the XP machine successfully ping either win7 or fedora?
XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora. win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules fully allow icmp in private+public+domain mode.
Fedora has these rules pertaining to the LAN:
-A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0/0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that ping were not blocked in or out.
I'd start by comparing IP addresses on all three machines and checking to see that they all think they are on the "same" network.
Checked. IP addresses are all in sync.
Second I'd check the routing tables on all 3 machines to ensure that they are all consistent.
Win7 routing table: IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.1 276 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 Default
xp1 routing table: ===========================================================================^M ===========================================================================^M Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.3 25 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 25 192.168.1.3 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 25 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 25 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 25^M 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 3 1 Default Gateway: 192.168.1.254 ===========================================================================^M
Fedora routing table: netstat -nr Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 wlan0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0
Can all 3 machines get to the internet (though what I am guessing is a common router)
All 3 machines can indeed use the public net via same router.
On 05/24/2011 10:19 PM, JD wrote:
On 05/24/11 18:45, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
Does "xp1" have an IP address?
If yes, does Fedora know about it?
xp1 and win7 are both listed in /etc/hosts. So yes, they have IP addresses :) :)
You didn't explicitly list them. Can I assume that they are:
win7 192.168.1.1 fedora 192.168.1.2 xp1 192.168.1.3 router 192.168.1.254
?
Are these all DCHP assigned from the router? or static? If dynamic, the router will also probably help set up your routing tables as well.... (and possibly your DNS stuff as well....)
Can the XP machine successfully ping either win7 or fedora?
XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora.
Strange! Could be firewall related....
win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules
??? xp1 can ping win7, but win7 cannot ping win7??? And win7 cannot ping fedora? I must confess, I don't know that much about win7, but that seems strange.
fully allow icmp in private+public+domain mode.
Does traceroute tell you anything about the network routing?
(BTW, Microsoft spells traceroute: tracert)
Usually, if you have the proper routing, it will tell you how it connects. My laptop connects to every machine on my LAN directly (only 1 hop), even though the laptop is connected to the router with the wlan, and the other machines directly with the wired network. And my network is particularly convoluted:
ISP <-> ISP wireless-router <-> linksys wireless router (2 linux servers wired directly, third cable goes to a 4 port switch, one of which goes to my son's XP, another goes to another switch with 2 more XP machines and an HP printer on it). All of my linksys-wireless and the wired connections use the same 192.168.6 network.
Microsoft has a tendency for each new OS to try and supersede the previous wrt Microsoft networking control (netbios stuff).
Fedora has these rules pertaining to the LAN:
-A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0/0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT
631 is the CUPS printing stuff. The rest of those are Microsoft only services. Maybe Samba (smbd/nmbd) will make use of them. Are you running samba on your fedora machine?
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that ping were not blocked in or out.
If you can ping the router without them, you don't need them.
I'd start by comparing IP addresses on all three machines and checking to see that they all think they are on the "same" network.
Checked. IP addresses are all in sync.
OK.
Second I'd check the routing tables on all 3 machines to ensure that they are all consistent.
Win7 routing table: IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.1 276 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 Default
xp1 routing table: ===========================================================================^M ===========================================================================^M Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.3 25 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 25 192.168.1.3 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 25 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 25 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 25^M 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 3 1 Default Gateway: 192.168.1.254 ===========================================================================^M
Fedora routing table: netstat -nr Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 wlan0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0
wlan0??? You didn't mention this before (but its the same as I am using from my laptop). I have 3 XP machines on my home network, and I have no problems pinging them (though they don't seem to respond to traceroute!) Either way, and I have 2 linux servers (wired) that the XP machines can ping as well as my laptop.
Can all 3 machines get to the internet (though what I am guessing is a common router)
All 3 machines can indeed use the public net via same router.
Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall (iptables)? Are they any better or do they still fail? What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?
On 05/24/11 22:07, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
You didn't explicitly list them. Can I assume that they are:
win7 192.168.1.1 fedora 192.168.1.2 xp1 192.168.1.3 router 192.168.1.254
fedora 192.168.1.108
?
Are these all DCHP assigned from the router? or static? If dynamic, the router will also probably help set up your routing tables as well.... (and possibly your DNS stuff as well....)
Static
XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora.
Strange! Could be firewall related....
It must be. But I have no idea what is preventing another LAN host to ping fedora.
win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules
??? xp1 can ping win7, but win7 cannot ping win7??? And win7 cannot ping fedora? I must confess, I don't know that much about win7, but that seems strange.
Na... My crapping typing ... sometimes my fingers get ahead of my thoughts :) win7 cannot ping either xp1 or fedora - that's what I meant to say.
Does traceroute tell you anything about the network routing?
(BTW, Microsoft spells traceroute: tracert)
Will have to try tracert tomorrow on win7. But on fedora:
$ traceroute xp1 traceroute to xp1 (192.168.1.3), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.108 (192.168.1.108) 3006.508 ms !H 3006.495 ms !H 3006.478 ms !H And yet, I cannot ping it!!
$ traceroute win7 traceroute to win7 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * *
What's this??? xp1 and win7 are on the same lan, and I can ping win7 now. It is actually responding. How come xp1, which fedora cannot ping is reached by traceroute, and win7, which fedora can ping, is not reacheable by traceroute. Could be that traceroute uses a protocol that win7 is blocking and xp1 is not?
631 is the CUPS printing stuff. The rest of those are Microsoft only services. Maybe Samba (smbd/nmbd) will make use of them. Are you running samba on your fedora machine?
Yes
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that ping were not blocked in or out.
If you can ping the router without them, you don't need them.
OK. Thanx. I will remove them, because I could ping the router without them.wlan0??? You didn't mention this before (but its the same as I am using
from my laptop). I have 3 XP machines on my home network, and I have no problems pinging them (though they don't seem to respond to traceroute!) Either way, and I have 2 linux servers (wired) that the XP machines can ping as well as my laptop.
Sorry! did not think of it.
Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall (iptables)?
Indeed I have. Neither machine can ping fedora. Router can ping fedora and vice versa with or without iptables turned on. Router can also ping xp1 and win7.
Are they any better or do they still fail?
They (xp1 and win7) fail to ping fedora.
What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?
Will try that in the morning.
Thanx Kevin for looking into this. I am starting to think that the router must be taking an active role in this, but I just cannot see any settings that would betray this.
On 05/24/11 22:07, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall (iptables)? Are they any better or do they still fail? What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?
I finally zeroed in on the culprit. It is neither fedora, nor windows xp nor windows 7. It is the router from at&t.
I repeated the following process:
power cycle the router wait until the network is re-established on all clients. then ping from to works? ----------------------------- xp1 fedora yes fedora xp1 yes
xp1 win7 yes win7 xp1 yes
win7 fedora yes fedora win7 yes
Then I waited about 20 to 30 minutes
ping from to works? ----------------------------- xp1 fedora no fedora xp1 no
xp1 win7 yes win7 xp1 no
win7 fedora no fedora win7 no
I can reproduce this behaviour every time I power cycle the router.
It goes without saying that 30 minutes after resetting the router, neither xp1 nor win7 can access the samba exported printer on fedora, nor can fedora access the shares exported by win7 and xp1.
I had called at&t - explained the problem. They sent a cable installer who knew nothing about administering the router, and he was candid enough to admit it.
My only conclusion is that someone at at&t or a nearby is/are hacking our router, or the router's firmware is buggy. But I have never seen a bug like this that waits 20 to 30 minutes before striking :)
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:50 -0700, JD wrote:
My only conclusion is that someone at at&t or a nearby is/are hacking our router, or the router's firmware is buggy. But I have never seen a bug like this that waits 20 to 30 minutes before striking :)
Or it's failing... Does it, or its power supply, get hot? Does improving its ventilation change behaviour?
I've had two modem routers go bad, I suspect they've been zapped up the phone line during thunderstorms.
I like to take modem/routers out of my networking. Everything in my LAN connects to a switch, and that has one ethernet cable leading to the modem router. It (modem/router) can fail, or be left switched off, and the LAN works fine. Also, if I have to change the modem/router, nothing else needs reconfiguring.
On 05/25/11 18:46, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:50 -0700, JD wrote:
My only conclusion is that someone at at&t or a nearby is/are hacking our router, or the router's firmware is buggy. But I have never seen a bug like this that waits 20 to 30 minutes before striking :)
Or it's failing... Does it, or its power supply, get hot? Does improving its ventilation change behaviour?
Well, it is in a well ventilated spot on the table, it stands upright, and has perforated grill on both sides. It hardly ever gets warm to the touch, even on days when the temp is in the 90's. Where it is located, a strong ceiling fan keeps the air well circulated. So, I realy do not think that it is getting too hot.
I've had two modem routers go bad, I suspect they've been zapped up the phone line during thunderstorms.
This thing connects to the coax cable in the wall. The at&t uverse system is on fiber-optic cable until it gets to the curb by the development. From there it is on buried coax to homes.
I like to take modem/routers out of my networking. Everything in my LAN connects to a switch, and that has one ethernet cable leading to the modem router.
If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room, I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on that desk is the router.
On 05/25/2011 08:11 PM, JD wrote:
If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room, I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on that desk is the router.
It's not exactly hard to run the cable along the walls, stapling it to the baseboards. And, if you know how, it's easy to lift a small section of carpet in doorways, lay the cable and put the carpet back in place over it. That's not to say you can't use wireless if you prefer, just that you don't have to if you don't want to.
On 05/25/11 20:22, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/25/2011 08:11 PM, JD wrote:
If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room, I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on that desk is the router.
It's not exactly hard to run the cable along the walls, stapling it to the baseboards. And, if you know how, it's easy to lift a small section of carpet in doorways, lay the cable and put the carpet back in place over it. That's not to say you can't use wireless if you prefer, just that you don't have to if you don't want to.
I wish I could do that - but the owner is not I :)
On 05/25/2011 08:37 PM, JD wrote:
I wish I could do that - but the owner is not I :)
Understood. Please note that I didn't suggest drilling any holes or anything like that. My sister and I share a house; I'd like to do some drilling to shorten cable-runs but the house is in her name and she doesn't like the idea. That's why I suggested running it along the wall. (If you have enough furniture in the right place, you don't even need staples.)
On 05/25/11 21:09, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/25/2011 08:37 PM, JD wrote:
I wish I could do that - but the owner is not I :)
Understood. Please note that I didn't suggest drilling any holes or anything like that. My sister and I share a house; I'd like to do some drilling to shorten cable-runs but the house is in her name and she doesn't like the idea. That's why I suggested running it along the wall. (If you have enough furniture in the right place, you don't even need staples.)
The owner is of the opinion that it would not help the sale price if any of the carpets were lifted off the nails because it would be evident to the observant buyer :)
But hate to say we are way off topic.
Geting back to which is: the darned router is the guilty appliance in shutting comm between the 3 clients 20-30 minutes after power cycling it. What a piece of "dodgey" equipment, as our friends across the big pond would say :)
Just a shot in the dark, but do you have multiple dhcp daemons running on the network. Your router probably has one running. I could buy that multiple dhcp daemons might cause something like what you describe.
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3661 - Release Date: 05/26/11 02:34:00
Tim:
I've had two modem routers go bad, I suspect they've been zapped up the phone line during thunderstorms.
JD:
This thing connects to the coax cable in the wall. The at&t uverse system is on fiber-optic cable until it gets to the curb by the development. From there it is on buried coax to homes.
Doesn't meant it hasn't been zapped from another route (static inside the house, hotplugging equipment, poor anti-static precautions when the unit was built), or has simply failed.
I like to take modem/routers out of my networking. Everything in my LAN connects to a switch, and that has one ethernet cable leading to the modem router.
If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room, I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on that desk is the router.
You don't have to use /their/ crappy thing for your wireless. You could use your own wireless access point within your LAN.
I'm presuming you're persevering with using it because you're encumbered with it by your ISP. If you're stuck with it, and it is faulty, I'd be getting more snarky with the ISP about getting it swapped. Seeing as you're paying for it, one way or another.
On 05/26/11 06:46, Rich wrote:
Just a shot in the dark, but do you have multiple dhcp daemons running on the network. Your router probably has one running. I could buy that multiple dhcp daemons might cause something like what you describe.
$ ps -ef | grep dhcp jd 12817 5530 0 07:35 pts/2 00:00:00 grep dhcp
machines win7 and xp1 are not servers, so no dhcp services are running on them. All 3 machines have had static IP's for more than3 years. This problem is a recent one after AT&T remotely flashed the modem with new firmware.
On 05/26/11 07:18, Tim wrote:
Tim:
I've had two modem routers go bad, I suspect they've been zapped up the phone line during thunderstorms.
JD:
This thing connects to the coax cable in the wall. The at&t uverse system is on fiber-optic cable until it gets to the curb by the development. From there it is on buried coax to homes.
Doesn't meant it hasn't been zapped from another route (static inside the house, hotplugging equipment, poor anti-static precautions when the unit was built), or has simply failed.
But how can you explain that a power reset (without letting it cool down), makes all three machine be able to communicate and 20-30 minutes later, they cannot?
I like to take modem/routers out of my networking. Everything in my LAN connects to a switch, and that has one ethernet cable leading to the modem router.
If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room, I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on that desk is the router.
You don't have to use /their/ crappy thing for your wireless. You could use your own wireless access point within your LAN.
I tried. I attached my ow router to the att router. And guess what, the latency is so horrible for EVERY packet, that it makes it useless. It's as if heir router firmware does not seem to like to receive NATed packets?
I'm presuming you're persevering with using it because you're encumbered with it by your ISP. If you're stuck with it, and it is faulty, I'd be getting more snarky with the ISP about getting it swapped. Seeing as you're paying for it, one way or another.
I assure you I tried. They "analyze" the problem from remote and say they cannot find any problem with the router. If it were up to me I would get rid of them faster than light speed :)
On 5/26/2011 10:38 AM, JD wrote:
On 05/26/11 06:46, Rich wrote:
Just a shot in the dark, but do you have multiple dhcp daemons running on the network. Your router probably has one running. I could buy that multiple dhcp daemons might cause something like what you describe.
$ ps -ef | grep dhcp jd 12817 5530 0 07:35 pts/2 00:00:00 grep dhcp
machines win7 and xp1 are not servers, so no dhcp services are running on them. All 3 machines have had static IP's for more than3 years. This problem is a recent one after AT&T remotely flashed the modem with new firmware.
I'm sure you already tried this, but just in case, have you tried turning off each of the three machines one at a time and seeing if the same problem occurs with just two machines on the network?
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3661 - Release Date: 05/26/11 02:34:00
On 05/26/11 12:23, Rich wrote:
On 5/26/2011 10:38 AM, JD wrote:
On 05/26/11 06:46, Rich wrote:
Just a shot in the dark, but do you have multiple dhcp daemons running on the network. Your router probably has one running. I could buy that multiple dhcp daemons might cause something like what you describe.
$ ps -ef | grep dhcp jd 12817 5530 0 07:35 pts/2 00:00:00 grep dhcp
machines win7 and xp1 are not servers, so no dhcp services are running on them. All 3 machines have had static IP's for more than3 years. This problem is a recent one after AT&T remotely flashed the modem with new firmware.
I'm sure you already tried this, but just in case, have you tried turning off each of the three machines one at a time and seeing if the same problem occurs with just two machines on the network?
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3661 - Release Date: 05/26/11 02:34:00
Have done that umpteen times - to no avail :( There is no question in my mind that the modem/router is being interfered with manually from beyond our house. I do not believe that someone was able to hack our wlan.
Tim:
Doesn't meant it hasn't been zapped from another route (static inside the house, hotplugging equipment, poor anti-static precautions when the unit was built), or has simply failed.
JD:
But how can you explain that a power reset (without letting it cool down), makes all three machine be able to communicate and 20-30 minutes later, they cannot?
If, and I mean if, being zapped was the cause, then that could well be the nature of the fault. Damage to components that allow a charge to build up that causes stuff ups.
Faulty equipment can behave in weird ways. I've been servicing electronics equipment for over twenty years, and it's quite hard to relate broken equipment behaviour to how things are expected to work.
You don't have to use /their/ crappy thing for your wireless. You could use your own wireless access point within your LAN.
I tried. I attached my ow router to the att router. And guess what, the latency is so horrible for EVERY packet, that it makes it useless. It's as if heir router firmware does not seem to like to receive NATed packets?
That's possible. Or just a strange compatibility between yours and theirs. Or you've firewalled things off, too much, and broken basic networking.
In the best of worlds, you'd reconfigure their modem/router to act as just a bare-bones modem (bridge mode), so there's less processing between modem and your own router.
I'm presuming you're persevering with using it because you're encumbered with it by your ISP. If you're stuck with it, and it is faulty, I'd be getting more snarky with the ISP about getting it swapped. Seeing as you're paying for it, one way or another.
I assure you I tried. They "analyze" the problem from remote and say they cannot find any problem with the router. If it were up to me I would get rid of them faster than light speed :)
Can you not replace it, yourself, with something equivalent? Does using that ISP absolutely require their equipment?
Can you break it, accidentally on purpose? ;-)
On 05/27/11 05:03, Tim wrote:
If, and I mean if, being zapped was the cause, then that could well be the nature of the fault. Damage to components that allow a charge to build up that causes stuff ups.
Faulty equipment can behave in weird ways. I've been servicing electronics equipment for over twenty years, and it's quite hard to relate broken equipment behaviour to how things are expected to work.
That's possible. Or just a strange compatibility between yours and theirs. Or you've firewalled things off, too much, and broken basic networking.
As this is a new development that started AFTER at&t flashed the modem with new firmware, I doubt it is faulty or zapped equipment. I don't believe in those kinds of co-incidences. AFA compatibility, I think we are reaching for a hare's horn :)
In the best of worlds, you'd reconfigure their modem/router to act as just a bare-bones modem (bridge mode), so there's less processing between modem and your own router.
That modem cannot be configured as you describe.
Can you not replace it, yourself, with something equivalent? Does using that ISP absolutely require their equipment?
Obviously you have not used at&t uverse service :) Without THEIR modem nothing works. Uverse is a package: TV, Internet, Phone services. Decryption of the TV signal occurs in the modem, and is then sent out the same cable on a different frequency, which is then picked up by each TV's at&t' STB. The modem just has piggybacked into it the WIFI and ethernet card.
Can you break it, accidentally on purpose? ;-)
I think the owner could ask them to replace it. but I do not believe that is the problem. Everything works except for the comm between the LAN clients. That is why I do not believe in the "zapped" theory.
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:19 -0700, JD wrote:
Obviously you have not used at&t uverse service :)
No... Wrong country
Without THEIR modem nothing works. Uverse is a package: TV, Internet, Phone services. Decryption of the TV signal occurs in the modem, and is then sent out the same cable on a different frequency, which is then picked up by each TV's at&t' STB. The modem just has piggybacked into it the WIFI and ethernet card.
Sounds like you're stuck, then. I've never been keen on these bundled things, as they tend to be jack of all trades, master of none. And you end up putting up with something that's bad, or separately handling it, with the multi-device sitting there to taunt you that you still need several devices, or services, instead of the all-in-one.
Trying to route through some things just plain sucks. Back in 1998, I dabbled with using a Windows box as the NAT box between dial-up and the LAN. It was dreadful. Apart from the usual crashes, it was slow, and often needed restarting. Changing over to using a Linux computer as the NAT device made a remarkable difference. Things were reliable, and traffic was surprisingly much faster.
You get the same with some hardware. Some modem/router devices are just awful. Sometimes they can be improved by upgrading their firmware, and sometimes going back to a prior version improves things.
About all you can do is keep hassling your service provider about this, letting them know that it's got worse, maybe you'll get a different help desk staff member one day who can actually change something to the better.
Their all-in-one service is, most likely, aimed at the average computer illiterate person who has one or two computers, doesn't really do anything special with them, is used to general Windows crappiness, and will also put up with the same crappiness in other gear, because they don't know any better. Technology, on a whole, seems to be going in that direction.
On 05/27/11 16:59, Tim wrote:
Their all-in-one service is, most likely, aimed at the average computer illiterate person who has one or two computers, doesn't really do anything special with them, is used to general Windows crappiness, and will also put up with the same crappiness in other gear, because they don't know any better. Technology, on a whole, seems to be going in that direction
You hit the nail on the head. All the owners are concerned about are the TV shows and email and web. And that's it. But when it comes to asking me to help with making the wifi-capable printer be accessible to all machines, or to transfer photos from one computer to another, I have to tell them I must reboot the router, and then, even then, I have only 20 to 30 minutes of transfer time, after which the router will clamp down on inter-lan traffic and I have to start all over again. I explain to them that they must force the isp to fix it. So far, no go.