Problem networking ME to XPProSP3

Isn't it the Windows network assistent which causes

the network not to work if this IP address and other options are
changed,
and they are changed all over the network?

If they're changed all over the network then it's DEFION|TELY a
user-intervention problem!

I meant that if the settings are rechanged manually and they are all ok
accross the net, it does not work due to the assistant being used
sometime before. No other network configuration will work as of using
the assistant.

ICS can ONLY work in a 192.168.0.x configuration - it's that simple.

Occasionally, for whatever reason, an XP machine will barf on boot, and
reset to another configuration - and then it loses ICS. re-running the
wizard will reset it.

If the wizard is run in the proper manner it always works, if the network
has been set up properly and there are no third-party interferences (such as
malware!)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Dominik George" wrote in message
...
Isn't it the Windows network assistent which causes

the network not to work if this IP address and other options are
changed,
and they are changed all over the network?

If they're changed all over the network then it's DEFION|TELY a
user-intervention problem!

I meant that if the settings are rechanged manually and they are all ok
accross the net, it does not work due to the assistant being used sometime
before. No other network configuration will work as of using the
assistant.

Noel Paton schrieb:
ICS can ONLY work in a 192.168.0.x configuration - it's that simple.

Occasionally, for whatever reason, an XP machine will barf on boot, and
reset to another configuration - and then it loses ICS. re-running the
wizard will reset it.

If the wizard is run in the proper manner it always works, if the network
has been set up properly and there are no third-party interferences (such as
malware!)


So WHY is it that simple? Why do you force people into the 192.168.0.x
subnet? It's all class C, every 192.168.x.y is a single subnet. In my
opinion, it is absolutely not important which subnet is used, as long as
TCP/IP is able to resolve hostnames to IPs and as long as ARP is able to
resolve IPs to MACs.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:32:09 +0200, Dominik George wrote:

Noel Paton schrieb:
ICS can ONLY work in a 192.168.0.x configuration - it's that simple.

Occasionally, for whatever reason, an XP machine will barf on boot, and
reset to another configuration - and then it loses ICS. re-running the
wizard will reset it.

If the wizard is run in the proper manner it always works, if the network
has been set up properly and there are no third-party interferences (such as
malware!)


So WHY is it that simple? Why do you force people into the 192.168.0.x
subnet? It's all class C, every 192.168.x.y is a single subnet. In my
opinion, it is absolutely not important which subnet is used, as long as
TCP/IP is able to resolve hostnames to IPs and as long as ARP is able to
resolve IPs to MACs.

I imagine it is simpler to program the Wizard for a fixed subnet. BTW,
"Class C" is passé; CIDR is the current notation. And, except for Windows
ICS, you aren't locked into /24s in the 192.168.0.0/16. My router will let
me configure smaller, or larger subnets in any part of that range.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

It's that simple because it's designed for use by people who don't know what
an IP address is, let alone how to configure it (and they probably aren't
sure what an NIC is either, and never heard of a MAC address).
It's not intended for use on multiple subnets - just a single peer-to-peer
network for filesharing, with access to the Internet for those who need it.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Dominik George" wrote in message
...
Noel Paton schrieb:
ICS can ONLY work in a 192.168.0.x configuration - it's that simple.

So WHY is it that simple?

Noel Paton schrieb:
It's that simple because it's designed for use by people who don't know what
an IP address is, let alone how to configure it (and they probably aren't
sure what an NIC is either, and never heard of a MAC address).
It's not intended for use on multiple subnets - just a single peer-to-peer
network for filesharing, with access to the Internet for those who need it.


I think that this what not quite the thing I wanted to know. The actual
problem is that after using the wizard, any changes to the configuration
that would be OK on a "handmade" network will fail. From my point of
view, this is not at all logical, is it?

The point of the Wizard is that you are expected to use it on ALL nodes of
the network - with the original disk created from the host machine.
Unfortunately, the world has moved on since Win ME, and the networks found
now are not necessarily what was expected when the Wizard was created (my
own network here has a base address of 198.162.1.1 - which can create
problems with wizards....)


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Dominik George" wrote in message
...
Noel Paton schrieb:
It's that simple because it's designed for use by people who don't know
what an IP address is, let alone how to configure it (and they probably
aren't sure what an NIC is either, and never heard of a MAC address).
It's not intended for use on multiple subnets - just a single
peer-to-peer network for filesharing, with access to the Internet for
those who need it.


I think that this what not quite the thing I wanted to know. The actual
problem is that after using the wizard, any changes to the configuration
that would be OK on a "handmade" network will fail. From my point of view,
this is not at all logical, is it?