Cisco 802.11a/b/g Card Problem

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I have the Cisco 802.11a/b/g Cardbus PC card for my laptop. I cannot get to
the Internet or my network with this card. I can connect to my access point
(Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get. The Cisco desk utility
keeps saying that the card's IP address is 0.0.0.0, no matter if I set the
WAP to visible or invisible. The only place I can manually set the card's IP
is in Windows (running Win2000), but the Cisco utility still sees all zeros
for the IP (and using Windows 2000 alone will not allow me to set the
encryption (unless there is a patch that I'm missing)). I am using WEP 128
bit pre-shared keys, open authentication. I've played with DNS and DHCP on
my router, the WAP, Windows, etc. Brick wall!!

Anyone have any luck with this card? I hope that there is something simple
and stupid that I'm overlooking. I heard that the utility for the Aironet
352 was pretty decent. I'm only running 802.11b, so I don't have a problem
using an older utility as long as it works. Is there a third party utility
that gives you good control over the settings of these triband cards? I
bought this card to give me a little more range over my Orinoco Gold. But
right now, this Cisco is looking like Roy Jones after his last fight!

Any help would be appreciated.

DCWhitty
9 answers Last reply
More about cisco card problem
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:52:38 GMT, "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net>
    wrote:

    > I have the Cisco 802.11a/b/g Cardbus PC card for my laptop. I cannot get to
    >the Internet or my network with this card. I can connect to my access point
    >(Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get. The Cisco desk utility
    >keeps saying that the card's IP address is 0.0.0.0,

    The above two statements are contradictory. There is no way your
    Cisco PCMCIA card can communicate with your access point unless it has
    an IP address. It will not work set to 0.0.0.0. Therefore, either
    your Cisco desk utility is lying, or you're talking to an alien
    invader using a new and wonderful protocol. Since the later is
    unlikely, I would suspect that something is causing the Cisco Desk
    Utility to not display the IP address.

    >no matter if I set the
    >WAP to visible or invisible.

    Visible and invisible refer to broadcasting the SSID. Turn this on
    (visible) for now and leave it there. This has nothing to do with the
    IP address.

    >The only place I can manually set the card's IP
    >is in Windows (running Win2000), but the Cisco utility still sees all zeros
    >for the IP

    Could I trouble you to see what Windoze 2000 thinks is the IP address?
    Open an MSDOS window with:
    Start -> Run -> cmd
    and inscribe:
    ipconfig
    It may show multiple network adapters (ethernet, modem, 1394,
    wireless). Does the ipconfig show a proper IP address, DNS, and
    gateway? It better or you would not be able to talk to your access
    point.

    >(and using Windows 2000 alone will not allow me to set the
    >encryption (unless there is a patch that I'm missing)).

    No, there's nothing missing assuming you have the right Windoze driver
    for the card. It should be in the configuration for the Cisco
    wireless card. Maybe you can get to it through a different method.
    Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Network
    Right click on the Cisco Wireless icon and select properties.
    There should be something there to specify the encryption. If you're
    talking via wireless to the web server inside the Senao access point,
    you're done. It's working.

    >I am using WEP 128
    >bit pre-shared keys, open authentication. I've played with DNS and DHCP on
    >my router, the WAP, Windows, etc. Brick wall!!

    If you're talking to the web server in the Senao access point via the
    wireless link, your done. That part is working.

    However, your access point is just a bridge and USUALLY requires a
    router to connect to the internet. In this case you have two choices.
    1. You can use just the wirless bridge (access point) to connect to
    your unspecified DSL or cable modem, and install whatever goofy and
    disgusting software is required to connect to the unspecified ISP.
    2. Or you can install an ethernet router between the DSL or cable
    modem and the access point, and have it deal with the ISP.

    The problem with #1 is that the access point configuration utility may
    have an IP address that is radically different from the IP assigned by
    the ISP. You may be able to connect to one, or the other, but not
    both, depending upon your configuration.

    >Anyone have any luck with this card?

    Luck is helpful, but not required. Expertise is usually more useful.

    >I hope that there is something simple
    >and stupid that I'm overlooking. I heard that the utility for the Aironet
    >352 was pretty decent. I'm only running 802.11b, so I don't have a problem
    >using an older utility as long as it works. Is there a third party utility
    >that gives you good control over the settings of these triband cards? I
    >bought this card to give me a little more range over my Orinoco Gold. But
    >right now, this Cisco is looking like Roy Jones after his last fight!

    Use the utility that came with the card. It's not working (0.0.0.0)
    so the real question is why.
    Does your Orinoco Gold card work?
    For that matter, does a direct connection to whatever you have the
    access point connected to also work?
    What other hardware (DSL/cable modem, router) have you not mentioned?

    >Any help would be appreciated.
    >
    >DCWhitty
    >

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    It appears that DHCP is having a difficult time assigning an IP address.
    One of the things you can try is manually assigning the IP address. You
    may have already done so but, in case you haven't, disable DHCP in the
    router's config. menu. Disable encryption until we get your situation
    taken care of. If there's a STATUS section, jot down the DNS numbers.
    Save the settings then exit the router's menu. Go to your Windows
    Control panel/Network Connections then right click on your wireless
    network connection. Click on PROPERTIES and then highlight INTERNET
    PROTOCOL (TCP/IP). Click on the properties tab and then click on OBTAIN
    AN IP ADDRESS AUTOMATICALLY. Fill in the blanks. For now, make sure your
    settings are in line with that of the IP address of your router. For
    example, if your router's IP address (also known as the gateway address)
    is 192.168.0.1 then manually assign your wireless device to be
    192.168.0.2. Once you get it working correctly, I suggest you change
    these numbers. My router allows me to change all of the numbers while
    other only allow you to change the last two sections of the IP address.
    Anyway, click APPLY and see whether or not you can successfully surf the
    net. If this doesn't work, we'll try something else. Chat with you
    later.

    "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net> wrote in
    news:a7t7d.22559$kq6.13392580@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

    > I have the Cisco 802.11a/b/g Cardbus PC card for my laptop. I cannot
    > get to
    > the Internet or my network with this card. I can connect to my access
    > point (Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get. The Cisco desk
    > utility keeps saying that the card's IP address is 0.0.0.0, no matter
    > if I set the WAP to visible or invisible. The only place I can
    > manually set the card's IP is in Windows (running Win2000), but the
    > Cisco utility still sees all zeros for the IP (and using Windows 2000
    > alone will not allow me to set the encryption (unless there is a patch
    > that I'm missing)). I am using WEP 128 bit pre-shared keys, open
    > authentication. I've played with DNS and DHCP on my router, the WAP,
    > Windows, etc. Brick wall!!
    >
    > Anyone have any luck with this card? I hope that there is something
    > simple and stupid that I'm overlooking. I heard that the utility for
    > the Aironet 352 was pretty decent. I'm only running 802.11b, so I
    > don't have a problem using an older utility as long as it works. Is
    > there a third party utility that gives you good control over the
    > settings of these triband cards? I bought this card to give me a
    > little more range over my Orinoco Gold. But right now, this Cisco is
    > looking like Roy Jones after his last fight!
    >
    > Any help would be appreciated.
    >
    > DCWhitty
    >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Doug Jamal" <bishiv6ERASEATYAHOODOTCOM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns957664EEDA49ERASEbishiv6atyahood@65.32.5.122...
    > It appears that DHCP is having a difficult time assigning an IP address.
    > One of the things you can try is manually assigning the IP address. You
    > may have already done so but, in case you haven't, disable DHCP in the
    > router's config. menu. Disable encryption until we get your situation
    > taken care of. If there's a STATUS section, jot down the DNS numbers.
    > Save the settings then exit the router's menu. Go to your Windows
    > Control panel/Network Connections then right click on your wireless
    > network connection. Click on PROPERTIES and then highlight INTERNET
    > PROTOCOL (TCP/IP). Click on the properties tab and then click on OBTAIN
    > AN IP ADDRESS AUTOMATICALLY. Fill in the blanks. For now, make sure your
    > settings are in line with that of the IP address of your router. For
    > example, if your router's IP address (also known as the gateway address)
    > is 192.168.0.1 then manually assign your wireless device to be
    > 192.168.0.2. Once you get it working correctly, I suggest you change
    > these numbers. My router allows me to change all of the numbers while
    > other only allow you to change the last two sections of the IP address.
    > Anyway, click APPLY and see whether or not you can successfully surf the
    > net. If this doesn't work, we'll try something else. Chat with you
    > later.
    >
    > "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net> wrote in
    > news:a7t7d.22559$kq6.13392580@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net

    Thanks Doug!

    Seems to be an encryption problem bet. the Senao AP and the Cisco. 128-bit
    WEP didn't work. Disabled WEP, and everything worked. Switched to WPA
    passphrase, and got connected immediately (static IPs, gateway, DNS server
    info., Internet and network access, etc.). But the signal with WPA is good,
    but not great. So I'll have to try another form of encryption (i.e. 40-bit
    WEP, or 802.1x, or WPA with a different cypher strength) to see if that
    improves the signal.

    Let's cross the fingers . . . .
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    news:n3ktl0pp87trm69aqldjeqmon9gg0r474g@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:52:38 GMT, "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > I have the Cisco 802.11a/b/g Cardbus PC card for my laptop. I cannot get
    to
    > >the Internet or my network with this card. I can connect to my access
    point
    > >(Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get. The Cisco desk utility
    > >keeps saying that the card's IP address is 0.0.0.0,
    >
    > The above two statements are contradictory. There is no way your
    > Cisco PCMCIA card can communicate with your access point unless it has
    > an IP address. It will not work set to 0.0.0.0. Therefore, either
    > your Cisco desk utility is lying, or you're talking to an alien
    > invader using a new and wonderful protocol. Since the later is
    > unlikely, I would suspect that something is causing the Cisco Desk
    > Utility to not display the IP address.
    >

    Jeff, problem seems to have been the encryption (see my last post). Dropping
    128-bit WEP solved the problem.


    > >no matter if I set the
    > >WAP to visible or invisible.
    >

    snip

    >
    > However, your access point is just a bridge and USUALLY requires a
    > router to connect to the internet. In this case you have two choices.
    > 1. You can use just the wirless bridge (access point) to connect to
    > your unspecified DSL or cable modem, and install whatever goofy and
    > disgusting software is required to connect to the unspecified ISP.
    > 2. Or you can install an ethernet router between the DSL or cable
    > modem and the access point, and have it deal with the ISP.
    >
    > Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    > Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

    Like I said. Encryption. Everything was working fine until I added the Senao
    and the Cisco to the system. The Senao replaced an SMC2655W access point
    (which was working fine at 128-bit WEP), and the Cisco replaced the Orinoco
    (which was also working fine at 128-bit WEP). The Senao even worked somewhat
    with the Orinoco at 128-bit WEP (I could get Internet access, but no
    connection to the rest of my PCs on the network), but didn't work at all
    with the Cisco at 128-bit WEP.

    The Senao and Cisco now work well using WPA passphrase, although the signal
    is not stellar in a corner of the house where I will be using the wireless
    laptops the most (BTW: I am in the process of following your advice in
    another thread re: "throwing the cable out of the window" LOL and trying to
    run some outdoor-rated Belden Cat5E into my basement, in order to relocate
    the access point to a lower floor).

    So which form of encryption gives the best mix of speed and security,
    because I'd like to find a happy medium (before I throw the cable out of the
    window LOL!). Is it 40-bit WEP, 128-bit WEP, 802.1x, WPA w/TKIP or WEP
    cypher, etc.

    Thanks.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:09:02 GMT, "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net>
    wrote:

    >Jeff, problem seems to have been the encryption (see my last post). Dropping
    >128-bit WEP solved the problem.

    Sorry. I thought that your statement:
    "I can connect to my access point (Senao NL-3054CB3+), but
    that is as far as I get."
    mean't that you can connect from the Cisco card to the Senao access
    point web browser. You would need to have an IP addresa and working
    encryption to do that. Next time, please be a bit more specific.

    >Like I said. Encryption. Everything was working fine until I added the Senao
    >and the Cisco to the system. The Senao replaced an SMC2655W access point
    >(which was working fine at 128-bit WEP), and the Cisco replaced the Orinoco
    >(which was also working fine at 128-bit WEP). The Senao even worked somewhat
    >with the Orinoco at 128-bit WEP (I could get Internet access, but no
    >connection to the rest of my PCs on the network), but didn't work at all
    >with the Cisco at 128-bit WEP.

    I've observed many WLAN's where DHCP works with no encryption and
    fails erratically when encryption is enabled. I just dealt with a
    Dlink DWL-624 and D-Link DWL-G510 network with exactly the same
    problem. Just to make it weirder, there were three machines with
    DWL-G510 PCI wireless cards. Two ran older software, while one was
    updated to the latest. The older ones would work most of the time,
    while the new drivers required much thrashing with ipconfig and
    enable/disable to get an IP address.

    I'm not sure exactly what's causing the problem. I plan to do some
    sniffing and capture some packets for analysis. My guess(tm) is that
    it's mostly the access point, because all three computahs would
    associate and get DHCP addresses from a Netgear WRG614 I happen to
    drag along (troublehshooting by substitution).

    >The Senao and Cisco now work well using WPA passphrase, although the signal
    >is not stellar in a corner of the house where I will be using the wireless
    >laptops the most

    Huh? The Cisco 352 and Senao cards are among the "high power" flavour
    with 100mw and 100/200mw power output respectively. They also have
    considerably better receivers than average. If anything, you should
    have noticed an improvement over the previous SMC box. Something is
    wrong in the RF part of the puzzle.

    >(BTW: I am in the process of following your advice in
    >another thread re: "throwing the cable out of the window" LOL and trying to
    >run some outdoor-rated Belden Cat5E into my basement, in order to relocate
    >the access point to a lower floor).

    Chuckle. Whatever works. I just wished they made CAT5E cable with a
    translucent jacket so it would be less visible. I have a bright blue
    cable temporarily installed (about 2 years now) out the window of my
    office, and a big hunk of bright yellow ethernet coax (RG-8/u) to an
    antenna. Overly conspicuous would be an understatement.

    Hmmm... They have transparent satellite dishes:
    http://www.plasteurope.com/new_products/detail.asp?tid=1040
    why not transparent cable?

    >So which form of encryption gives the best mix of speed and security,

    The best. Dump wireless and use CAT5. Nothing less than a wiretap
    will break in.

    >because I'd like to find a happy medium (before I throw the cable out of the
    >window LOL!). Is it 40-bit WEP, 128-bit WEP, 802.1x, WPA w/TKIP or WEP
    >cypher, etc.

    I prefer WPA-PSK (pre-shared key). Not perfect but good enough.
    Actually, I prefer unencrypted and use SSH and VPN tunnels for
    everything. However, that's a bit awkward for most users.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net> wrote in message
    news:i1D7d.25259$kq6.15124840@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    >
    > "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    > news:n3ktl0pp87trm69aqldjeqmon9gg0r474g@4ax.com...
    >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:52:38 GMT, "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I have the Cisco 802.11a/b/g Cardbus PC card for my laptop. I cannot
    >> > get
    > to
    >> >the Internet or my network with this card. I can connect to my access
    > point
    >> >(Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get. The Cisco desk utility
    >> >keeps saying that the card's IP address is 0.0.0.0,
    >>
    >> The above two statements are contradictory. There is no way your
    >> Cisco PCMCIA card can communicate with your access point unless it has
    >> an IP address.

    The OP probably meant that the laptop _associated_ with the AP. This is a
    problem with Open authentication. It lures you into believing that your
    connection with the AP is fully operational, when you've associated, but you
    haven't got the encryption straightened out.

    >>
    > > Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    >> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    >> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
    >
    > Like I said. Encryption. Everything was working fine until I added the
    > Senao
    > and the Cisco to the system. The Senao replaced an SMC2655W access point
    > (which was working fine at 128-bit WEP), and the Cisco replaced the
    > Orinoco
    > (which was also working fine at 128-bit WEP). The Senao even worked
    > somewhat
    > with the Orinoco at 128-bit WEP (I could get Internet access, but no
    > connection to the rest of my PCs on the network), but didn't work at all
    > with the Cisco at 128-bit WEP.
    >
    > The Senao and Cisco now work well using WPA passphrase, although the
    > signal
    > is not stellar

    Encryption has nothing to do with signal strength. Signal strength is a
    factor (along with receiver sensitivity, noise, multipath reflections, and
    modulation scheme) in receiving the transmitted bits and interpreting them
    to match what was sent. Once the bits of the ciphertext are received, they
    can be decrypted into plaintext.

    > So which form of encryption gives the best mix of speed and security,
    > because I'd like to find a happy medium (before I throw the cable out of
    > the
    > window LOL!). Is it 40-bit WEP, 128-bit WEP, 802.1x, WPA w/TKIP or WEP
    > cypher, etc.

    Speed and security are pretty much opposing forces. WPA is stronger than
    WEP 128/104, which is stronger than WEP 64/40. I wouldn't be too concerned
    about the speed differences, but the stronger encryptions will be slower.

    Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    news:fv3ul0119s0n565t328qgks17ora6avor6@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:09:02 GMT, "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Jeff, problem seems to have been the encryption (see my last post).
    Dropping
    > >128-bit WEP solved the problem.
    >
    > Sorry. I thought that your statement:
    > "I can connect to my access point (Senao NL-3054CB3+), but
    > that is as far as I get."
    > mean't that you can connect from the Cisco card to the Senao access
    > point web browser. You would need to have an IP addresa and working
    > encryption to do that. Next time, please be a bit more specific.
    >

    Well, you know what I meant!!! (I did say that the Cisco utility kept
    reading "0.0.0.0" no matter what I fiddled with). I set static IPs, default
    gateways, disabled DHCP on the router, the AP and in Windows (turned off the
    DHCP client service), and the utility still kept showing zeros. Once the WEP
    encryption was dropped (and the WPA encryption used), the utility properly
    showed the IP I assigned to the card. Funny, the utility lets you do pretty
    much everything else except set the meaningful IP/gateway/DHCP stuff. No one
    wants you to use the Windows configuration utilities, but these product
    manufacturers don't leave you any choice.


    > >Like I said. Encryption. Everything was working fine until I added the
    Senao
    > >and the Cisco to the system. The Senao replaced an SMC2655W access point
    > >(which was working fine at 128-bit WEP), and the Cisco replaced the
    Orinoco
    > >(which was also working fine at 128-bit WEP). The Senao even worked
    somewhat
    > >with the Orinoco at 128-bit WEP (I could get Internet access, but no
    > >connection to the rest of my PCs on the network), but didn't work at all
    > >with the Cisco at 128-bit WEP.
    >

    SNIP

    > >The Senao and Cisco now work well using WPA passphrase, although the
    signal
    > >is not stellar in a corner of the house where I will be using the
    wireless
    > >laptops the most
    >
    > Huh? The Cisco 352 and Senao cards are among the "high power" flavour
    > with 100mw and 100/200mw power output respectively. They also have
    > considerably better receivers than average. If anything, you should
    > have noticed an improvement over the previous SMC box. Something is
    > wrong in the RF part of the puzzle.

    Huh? That's exactly what I said. I thought the so-called high powered
    Senao/Cisco combo would have sent my signal
    into my neighbor's kitchen, but it seems to have only landed in my cat's
    litter box! I have everything set to 802.11b, so that signalling and range
    shouldn't be a problem. The only true benefit of these multiband APs and
    adapters are the new technology encryption protocols. For pure range and
    ease of use, I prefer the pure 802.11b stuff anyday. I personally think the
    Cisco's not doing the job, b/c the Senao does improve the range somewhat
    with the Orinoco (I plan on sending the Cisco back to the guy I bought it
    from for poor packaging, but that's another story). I ordered an SMC 2532W-B
    long range card (same specs as the Senao 2511CD 802.11b cards), and will see
    if there's an improvement.


    >
    > >So which form of encryption gives the best mix of speed and security,
    >
    > The best. Dump wireless and use CAT5. Nothing less than a wiretap
    > will break in.
    >
    > >because I'd like to find a happy medium (before I throw the cable out of
    the
    > >window LOL!). Is it 40-bit WEP, 128-bit WEP, 802.1x, WPA w/TKIP or WEP
    > >cypher, etc.
    >
    > I prefer WPA-PSK (pre-shared key). Not perfect but good enough.
    > Actually, I prefer unencrypted and use SSH and VPN tunnels for
    > everything. However, that's a bit awkward for most users.
    >
    >

    If my project of "throwing the cable out of the window" is successful, I
    will be relocating the AP to the same room where the laptops will be used
    (the entire first floor is open space). So signals and range won't be an
    issue anymore, even with industrial-strength encryption.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:28:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
    <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

    >On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:52:38 GMT, "DCWhitty" <dcwhitty@optonline.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> I have the Cisco 802.11a/b/g Cardbus PC card for my laptop. I cannot get to
    >>the Internet or my network with this card. I can connect to my access point
    >>(Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get. The Cisco desk utility
    >>keeps saying that the card's IP address is 0.0.0.0,
    >
    >The above two statements are contradictory. There is no way your
    >Cisco PCMCIA card can communicate with your access point unless it has
    >an IP address. It will not work set to 0.0.0.0. Therefore, either
    >your Cisco desk utility is lying, or you're talking to an alien
    >invader using a new and wonderful protocol. Since the later is
    >unlikely, I would suspect that something is causing the Cisco Desk
    >Utility to not display the IP address.
    >
    What?!? Before you tell someone they don't know what they are talking about, you
    should know what you are talking about.

    How do you think you get an IP in the first place?

    1. You connect to the AP

    2. Your machine sends out a DHCPDiscover packet asking if any machine can give
    it an ip address

    3. A DHCP Server (or multiple servers) replies with a DHCPOffer packet

    4. Your machine chooses one, and replies with a DHCPRequest packet. It includes
    its MAC address is this packet along with an IP # preference (if so configured)

    5. The DHCP Server replies with a DHCPACK packet, informing your machine of its
    IP address, and how many seconds the lease is good for

    At no time during this entire exchange does your machine have to have a valid IP
    address for any of the communications to take place. Some clients default to
    0.0.0.0, others (MS) default to a different value. It doesn't matter, since it
    all takes place via broadcast packets.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:02:48 GMT, Beretta <invalid@invalid.org> wrote:

    >At no time during this entire exchange does your machine have to have a valid IP
    >address for any of the communications to take place. Some clients default to
    >0.0.0.0, others (MS) default to a different value. It doesn't matter, since it
    >all takes place via broadcast packets.

    OK, now I'm guilty of not being very clear. I assumed that he was
    able to connect to the access point and tweak the built in web server
    values to enable/disable/set encryption settings and such, which were
    later discussed. You can't do that without a valid IP address.
    However, after DHCP has delivered an IP address, such things are
    possible. My statements were based on his statemen:
    "I can connect to my access point
    (Senao NL-3054CB3+), but that is as far as I get."
    which to me means that everything is working to the access point and
    that the failure was an inability to deliver an IP address. I
    appologize for the misinterpretation and assumption. I seem to have a
    different definition of "connect" than most people. To me, it means
    "it works and I can talk to it".

    Since most access points do not have a built in DHCP server, and there
    was no mention of where the DHCP server was located (router, ISP,
    Linux server, Windoze server, etc), my comments were an attempt
    determine what was happening. The details and solution were clarified
    in later postings, but there was no way to tell if there was even a
    DHCP serve available in the original posting.

    Incidentally, MS only defaults to 169.254.xxx.xxx until AFTER a DHCP
    broadcast fails to get a reply. During the exchange, the IP address
    can be literally anything, but is usually 0.0.0.0. In Windoze XP, the
    default IP address can be set to something other than 169.254.xxx.xxx.
    I do this when dealing with a system that chronically fails to deliver
    an IP address via DHCP and I have to default it to a static IP
    address, DNS, and gateway.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Access Cisco Internet Wireless Networking