How to tell which protocol (NetBUI or TCP/IP) each Network Neighborhood connection is using

"Steve Winograd [MVP]" wrote in message
...
I recently went to an Internet site that displayed my computer's
private IP address after running a "firewall" test. However, the
information from the web site is misleading. My firewall didn't
reveal the address -- it was Java running in my web browser that did.

They must have saw you say that and changed it. It tried it with just the
normal "medium" level security in the browser and it still showed the
Proxy's IP# instead of the private one. Just the same, that has me curious
to see what clientside script in the browser will do that. It might be fun
to play with. You could build a "polling system" to research what percentage
of users comming to a site run from private addresses and can also find out
what the most common private address blocks are being used.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

In article , "Phillip Windell"
@. wrote:
I recently went to an Internet site that displayed my computer's
private IP address after running a "firewall" test. However, the
information from the web site is misleading. My firewall didn't
reveal the address -- it was Java running in my web browser that did.

They must have saw you say that and changed it. It tried it with just the
normal "medium" level security in the browser and it still showed the
Proxy's IP# instead of the private one. Just the same, that has me curious
to see what clientside script in the browser will do that. It might be fun
to play with. You could build a "polling system" to research what percentage
of users comming to a site run from private addresses and can also find out
what the most common private address blocks are being used.

I still get the same results, Phillip. I'm using Mozilla Firebird,
not Internet Explorer. When I enable Java in Firebird, the "Firewall"
test shows my private IP address. When I disable Java in Firebird, it
doesn't show my private IP address.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

"Steve Winograd [MVP]" wrote in message
...
In article , "Phillip Windell"
I still get the same results, Phillip. I'm using Mozilla Firebird,
not Internet Explorer. When I enable Java in Firebird, the "Firewall"
test shows my private IP address. When I disable Java in Firebird, it
doesn't show my private IP address.

Ah! Ok,..well I'm probably not gonna get that worried about it.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

"Phillip Windell" @. wrote in message
...
"Dick Kistler" wrote in message
...
Nah, there is a place for a non-routable protocol in instances where
internet access
is not wanted or needed. For instance, in a network that is dedicated to
a particular job, and where internet connectivity is not wanted.

I agree. There are situations such as what you describe where NetBEUI is
"handy". But to be honest, it doesn't matter much to me what they do with
it. I can take it or leave it. Believe it or not I liked DOS, I thought it
was just fine for what it was designed to do, and even today it works just
fine on older equipment that only requires a simple OS like that. MS
dropped
support for DOS a long time ago yet there is no shortage of it if someone
wants a copy of it for something.

Yes, there are still lots of DOS(or maybe Windows for Workgroups 3.11)
machines
doing lots of good work out there. The rest of the world does not throw out
things so quickly when they work, as the electronics/computer industry does.
I once worked in the Chemical Industry where, when you install a control
system
you are talking about a 20-30 year lifetime. And have worked in plants with
50
year old control systems.

One thing that I have noticed about DOS and Windows 3.11 is that they run
real fast
on 200 MHz machines, too. And it can do lots of stuff-remember we were
running
the world using it 10 years ago. We would have been pleased as punch with
MSDOS
at 200 MHz.

And IBM is still selling it.

But you have to remember that MSDOS in say, 1994 had been about the same
OS for quite a long time-maybe 13 years. Windows XP is still very young.

And clearly Microsoft can do whatever they want to with NetBEUI, even if it
were
some kind of standard. Once upon a time Windows had many protocols
available,
but only two are left: TCP/IP and NWLink. Maybe I can get NWLink to work.
But not so far.

Dick

In article , Dick Kistler says...

Noel Paton wrote:
Why not just make life simple - and get rid of NetBEUI?

Geez, if I wanted to make my life simple(and didn't need internet access)
NetBEUI would be the ticket.

Perhaps you can explain why Microsoft doesn't support it any more. It would
be an ideal second protocol for home users, if they
wanted to access the internet and also use a second protocol for file and
printer sharing.

I use TCP/IP for Internet access, Internet sharing, and file and printer
sharing. It helps to keep the LAN behind a NAT/PAT device.

--
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

In article , Lil' Dave says...

Draw your own conclusions why this is a problem and if any pattern emerges.
Because netbeui is easy for the home user to configure.

I haven't had any trouble with TCP/IP.

Because one can deny sharing to TCP/IP if netbeui is used for the home
network.

I can deny sharing to the WAN TCP/IP while continuing to share the LAN
TCP/IP.

Because the XP firewall wasn't designed to protect from netbios attacks.

It does as well at NetBIOS protection as any other software firewall.

Because it prevents snooping on your home network by "trusted" applications
and programs accessing the internet via exclusively TCP/IP.

You can't access the Internet without TCP/IP. And you can get sniffers to
sniff any protocol ever made.

Because the zombies educated by MS were programmed to respond with violent
and irrational responses when the phrase "netbeui" was uttered or written as
you may have seen so far.

I have seen no violence, or irrationality to this point.

Shall I go on?

If you wish...

--
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

In article , Dick Kistler says...

However, you do increase your security somewhat if you use a different
protocol for file and printer sharing than for communications with the
internet.

I suppose that makes sense if you are using the same adapter to access the
Internet as you are using to share your files and your printer. If I wasn't
behind a router, I would just bind the file and printer sharing to the LAN
adapters; keep it off of the Internet adapter. Or am I missing something?

In addition, if the protocol is not routable, like NetBEUI is, you get a
little more
security. In fact, some sites recommend this as the only way to go, and that
using a single protocol for both internet connection and file/printer
sharing
is crazy. It seems to me that the network browsing problem could be
worked(so far, I haven't observed it).

I have not seen any successful attempts to access my file shares and printer
shares. I get hit with NetBIOS probes, but my shares might as well be on the
USB-USB bridge, or the IPX/SPX-compatible protocol as far as they are
concerned.

I just would like a straight answer from Microsoft about why they
don't support NetBEUI. I could handle it. Even if they said something
like "We stopped supporting NetBEUI because a. It's something we
used during the MSDOS era and we are flushing anything that we
can that we used back then. b. If you use an unroutable protocol
on your network, it will make it difficult for our "trusted computer"
system to work. or c. We couldn't see how NetBEUI could make
us any bucks, since the number of NetBEUI users is dropping. If
we could get rid of NWLink, we'd dump it too." I guess I could live
with it.

I would guess it is because the whole *nix world seems to be sold on the
TCP/IP protocol. *nix, and TCP/IP seem to be driving the Internet; MSFT is a
Johnny-come-lately to that world, and has probably encountered something
bigger than they are. So they have stopped trying to buck the trend, and
decided, instead, to try and co-opt it.

--
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