Re: ICS questions and confusion

Hi chuck, please see my responses below.

Chuck <none@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:tvs1g1puvdg15hqmn00e1hl1tvk1qhnc1d@xxxxxxx:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:42:39 -0700, DWalker <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Chuck <none@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>news:thl1g157gvl13d1rt1gms0h9ikaocj3lh1@xxxxxxx:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:33:13 -0700, DWalker <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My own followup question, sort of a general ICS "how-to" question:
>>>>
>>>>In ICS, if you have an Ethernet connection to the DSL modem/router,
>>>>should that connection be in the same 192.168.0.x subnet as the
>>>>host's Ethernet connection (192.168.0.1) that connects the clients
>>>>(this is the wireless PCI card in my case)?
>>>>
>>>>I take it the host's wireless PCI card that the client uses to
>>>>connect, is the one that gets the 192.168.0.1 address. My DSL
>>>>modem/router was originally shipped with address 192.168.0.1, so I
>>>>changed it to 192.168.0.254. I put the Ethernet connection that's
>>>>cabled to the DSL modem/router at 192.168.0.50.
>>>>
>>>>Should I put the DSL modem/router's internal IP address, and the
>>>>local Ethernet card in a different subnet from 192.168.0.x?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Since your Host to client LAN uses ICS, you have to keep
>>> 192.168.0/24 on that LAN. The LAN connecting your router to host
>>> has to be another subnet altogether.
>>>
>>> It would really be better for everybody if you would work on your
>>> problem, instead of putting in a workaround (ie NetBEUI) and
>>> recommending it to everybody. Alternate protocols like IPX/SPX and
>>> NetBEUI won't really help the situation in the long run.
>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/windows-networking-and-
>>alternate
>>> .html>
>>>
>>> There is really no reason why a supported solution like NetBIOS Over
>>> TCP/IP can't work in your case.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any previous posts from you in this forum. Or did
>>> you post long ago, or maybe use a different nym?
>>>
>>
>>I wasn't recommending anything to anybody; I really just installed
>>NetBEUI to make sure to my satisfaction that the wireless cards were
>>properly making the peer-to-peer connection. I would prefer to take
>>the NetBEUI back out, and I understand the issues you bring up in your
>>Web page.
>>
>>I called this a followup because it was a reply to my own message of a
>>few minutes previous. Were you replying to both my messages? Other
>>than those two, I haven't posted in this newsgroup before; I'm usually
>>in the SQL Server newsgroups.
>>
>>Question: WHY does the LAN connection that connects my router to the
>>host have to be on a different subnet than the 192.168.0.x one? And
>>where is that documented in all the how-to's on ICS, and in the
>>Microsoft documentation? I have never seen that documented.
>>
>>It doesn't HAVE to be on a different subnet, because I was running the
>>pervious setup for years (with the host being Windows 2000) and it
>>worked fine. It doesn't work now that I upgraded the host to Windows
>>XP.
>>
>>If you saw my other post, do you have any comments on the issues I
>>raised there, other than NetBEUI? Is the same-subnet issue the reason
>>for the system telling me that another connection in the network is
>>already using 192.168.0.1 (which, if that's the case, is an
>>incorrectly worded error message. Just because another adapter is on
>>the same subnet, doesn't mean that another connection is already using
>>192.168.0.1.)
>
> David,
>
> I was replying to your earlier post also, and I was sort of in the
> process of figuring it out when you posted the follow-up.
>
> You CAN have the "router to host", and the "host to client", LANs in
> the same subnet, but that requires that the ICS host become a bridge.
> ICS is a software based NAT router, and routers work best when the
> different interfaces are on separate LANs. And, if you want to use
> ICS, that means that the "host to client" LAN WILL use 192.168.0/24.
> That's one of the "features" (limitations) of ICS.
>
> I agree with you that the message "some other connection on the
> network already had the required address 192.168.0.1" is confusing.
> Not having seen your network, I can't say for sure, but I'd be almost
> willing to bet that both the connection to the router, and the
> connection to the client, are creating a bridge. And since ICS
> insists on using 192.168.0.1 for its hosts LAN address, it's having
> the problem there. If you setup the host as a bridge, you still won't
> be able to use 192.168.0.1 anywhere else.
>
> There are so many things about Microsoft Networking that are
> confusing. One of the subjects I try to help with is Windows
> Networking and Network Neighborhood. If I had a dollar for every time
> I've mentioned the Browser as a problem and someone replies "My
> Internet connection is fine" or similar, I'd have a lot of dollars.
>
> The "Allow other network users to connect through this computer's
> Internet connection" is relative to the host, and the Internet
> connection is the network adapter that this computer uses to access
> the Internet. In order to share Internet service, you have to have
> service. And that's the LAN that should not be on the 192.168.0/24
> subnet.
>
> Anyway, if I had a dollar for every time I've thought how confusing
> their documentation is, I'd have a hella lot of dollars. But that's
> one of the side benefits of the MVP program, I now have a contact in
> Microsoft, and I can ask him questions. And I have an avenue for
> suggesting documentation improvements (ie KB articles). So instead of
> cursing the darkness, I'm now in a position to light a couple candles.
> And I've lit a couple so far, and maybe I will get to light some more
> during the next few months.
>
> So, to your situation. I strongly recommend that you:
> # Change your router LAN to another subnet, say 192.168.1/24.
> # Identify the problem with Windows Networking in your laptop LAN, and
> restore NBT / TCP/IP as the transport there.

You're right, I changed the router's LAN connection to 192.168.1.1 and the
router itself to 192.168.1.254. Everything worked fine.

As I mentioned to Norman Miller in the other reply, none of the extensive
documentation even mentions in passing that the two adapters should be on a
different subnet. I was thinking they should all be on the same subnet so
they could all talk to each other, but I realise now that without static
routes, the computer can get confused on which adapter to send what data
to.

I'm not a networking expert.

If everything is set up to use DHCP, then that might work also -- but lots
of DSL modem/routers are shipped at address 192.168.0.1 and DHCP on, and I
find it easier to turn off DHCP and manually configure one computer. This
avoids the situations I have seen where more than one device on the network
(usually someone's wireless gateway) is giving out IP addresses at the same
time on the same subnet.

I had previously changed the router to 192.168.0.254 since I knew that ICS
needed 192.168.0.1. Now that I changed it to 192.168.1.254 and set the
computer's "Internet LAN" to 192.168.1.1, everything works great.

Thanks for your help. Maybe someone, somewhere, in all the vast set of
how-tos on ICS, will mention that the subnets need to be different.

And as I also said in the reply to Norman, the message that some other
device in the same system is using *address* 192.168.0.1 really means that
some other device in the system is on the same *subnet*. I'm sure of this,
because you can disable the Internet LAN adapter, and then you're able to
turn on ICS for that adapter without seeing the error message (then you can
re-enable that adapter). That's what I was doing when the host was Windows
2000, and it actually worked (usually).

Being on the same *subnet* is not the same as having the same *address*.
Even I know that! The error message is frustrating. If you can give some
input to the MS people in this repsect for Vista, please do!

Thanks.

David

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PPPD server routing problem? Mandrake/mgetty/pppd/D-link router
    ... >> address in that subnet to the PPP client should work. ... No access to anything beyond the PPPD server. ... But apparently at least one other host on the LAN can't, ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: wan ip ?
    ... What you _can_ find out is if the IP is in the same network ... or subnet as your host. ... of course is not the same as LAN vs WAN - a host in the same ... And a host on another subnet within your network ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.networks)
  • RE: ICS clients cannot connect
    ... I've got this from the ICS host: ... I turned off ICS host and then enabled it. ... the client and entered "ipconfig /release". ... goto one of the client machines and do the same, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: router causing ssh etc. slowdown?
    ... >> port on their public IP from a host on their own LAN. ... Let's say host A starts a TCP connection from its ... The router sends the SYN packet to ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: how to "join" LAN with plip link?
    ... PLIP howto) about a real case on how I have made a plip connected host ... looking like on the LAN. ... Then I test the proxy-arp by ... LAN (or client), or you need to configure the server to do 'proxy-ARP'. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)