Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

problems with 2 ethernet LANS joined by wireless network b..

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

A friend and I have wired lans at home with 2 and 5 pcs respectively. we
want to connect the 2 lan together. Currently, he has a Gigabyte
AP11g(802.11g) access point connected to his lan with an external high gain
antenna. His ip addresses are 192.168.1.8 and 192.168.1.10 for the pcs and
192.168.1.2 for the AP. the subnet mask we have used is 255.255.255.128. On
my side, I have converted a pc to perform "routing" functions. It has a
100Mbps ethernet card connected to my hub and a MSI PC54G 802.11g wifi card,
also with an external antenna. We get excellent signal between the two
points. My ip addresses range from 192.168.1.130 to 192.168.1.134 with
subnet 255.255.255.128 for the other pcs. The routing pc has the ethernet
adpapter with 192.168.1.129 and the wifi adapter with 192.168.1.1 both with
subnet 255.255.255.128. Before i bridge both networks work perfectly on
their own and i can access any pc from any other on its respective network.
To bridge the 2 networks, I use the Win XP network bridge with an ip of
192.168.1.254 and subnet 255.255.255.0. I have had to force the wifi card
into promiscuous mode using "netsh bridge adapter x" to make the bridge work
and i have edited the registry to enable ip forwarding in the tcpip services
section.

Now the problem - As soon as i add both networks to the bridge, I am able
to see all the others pcs from any wired pc and i can even copy files across,
but after a while(5 to 10 minutes) the "view workgroup computers" option
takes very long to load and i cannot see any computers other than the ones
directly connected via a hub. I can ping all the machines from the routing
pc and get a response but the other pcs can only ping each other until the
workgourp pcs arent viewable again. Another odd thing that happens is in
quake 3 - if, say he starts a multiplayer game on his side, i can see the
game on all my machines but i cannot get into it except for the routing pc,
hereas if i start the game on the routing pc alltheother pcs can enter the
game.

How can I have the network wroking porperly so that a pc can always connect
to another as long as the ap and the routing pc are switched on?

Are my ip address and subnet mask assignments incorrect? are there any other
settings i have forgotten to change?
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:54:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Blizard,

I believe that you want to make two separate networks and join them together
with an IP router. I'll explain to you how the configuration should
appear. This configuration would not work with bridging, so going forward
we are not using a bridge, but rather IP routes. Below I'll explain why.
Further on, I'll explain the short fix to make this work with your bridge.
You can decide which you really want to do.

The first problem that I have noted in the configuration is the use of a
1-bit subnet mask. 192.168.1.0 is not really a valid subnet, and
255.255.255.128 is not really a valid subnet mask.
http://www.ralphb.net/IPSubnet/restr.html . However, this may work. I
would recommend using a subnet mask of
255.255.255.192. This will give you addresses as:
192.168.1.66, 67, on the first subnet on the neighboring network, with the
router being 192.168.1.65, following convention.
Now, the second network can operate with the following:
netmask 255.255.225.192
IP addresses: 192.168.1.130, 131, with the router's address being
192.168.1.129, as above.

Now, my question is: why bridge? Why not just create routes between the two
networks? Bridging is slow, because it is not optimized for all layer 2
(IP, etc.) situations, and using the wireless link will be more costly and
slow. If these two networks are indeed separate, bridging them would make
them slower, while routing does not impeed the ability of one network to
function. For example: ARP. ARP resolves IP addresses into MAC addresses.
Bridging makes the network twice as large, and so therefore, ARPing has
twice as much cost. ARPing does not happen across distinct IP networks, per
definition, so adding a new subnet does not make ARPing slower. Do you see
my point? Not everything will be slower, but bridging does have it's costs.
And it has it's conveniences as well.
The big convenience will be this ability to "browse" the local network and
"see" all of the computers in a LAN Workgroup. I think that is useful, so
in the end you may want to bridge after all. If you can live without that,
the best option is to use names and create a LMHOSTS file with the addresses
of each machine. You seem like someone who knows what is going on, so I'll
leave that decision to you.

So, on the XP machine for routing, the routes to the networks will already
be created, but you need to enable routing between the interfaces.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315236&Product=winxp
This is not an official recomendation that you change your registry. Please
back-up your system before making registry changes.

Now to the short answer. If you still want to bridge, and not set this up
at the IP level, the solution is to eliminate your subnet, and make the
machines part of one big network.
Netmask: 255.255.255.0
IP address: 192.168.1.1 .. 192.168.1.254
Give each machine an address and set up the bridge- it should work this
time.

--
Brian Wehrle
bwehrle@online.microsoft.com
Software Test Engineer/Wireless Networking
Microsoft Corp.



"BliZarD" <BliZarD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:96D25083-E977-442C-9B0E-C15A4878DB56@microsoft.com...
>A friend and I have wired lans at home with 2 and 5 pcs respectively. we
> want to connect the 2 lan together. Currently, he has a Gigabyte
> AP11g(802.11g) access point connected to his lan with an external high
> gain
> antenna. His ip addresses are 192.168.1.8 and 192.168.1.10 for the pcs
> and
> 192.168.1.2 for the AP. the subnet mask we have used is 255.255.255.128.
> On
> my side, I have converted a pc to perform "routing" functions. It has a
> 100Mbps ethernet card connected to my hub and a MSI PC54G 802.11g wifi
> card,
> also with an external antenna. We get excellent signal between the two
> points. My ip addresses range from 192.168.1.130 to 192.168.1.134 with
> subnet 255.255.255.128 for the other pcs. The routing pc has the ethernet
> adpapter with 192.168.1.129 and the wifi adapter with 192.168.1.1 both
> with
> subnet 255.255.255.128. Before i bridge both networks work perfectly on
> their own and i can access any pc from any other on its respective
> network.
> To bridge the 2 networks, I use the Win XP network bridge with an ip of
> 192.168.1.254 and subnet 255.255.255.0. I have had to force the wifi card
> into promiscuous mode using "netsh bridge adapter x" to make the bridge
> work
> and i have edited the registry to enable ip forwarding in the tcpip
> services
> section.
>
> Now the problem - As soon as i add both networks to the bridge, I am able
> to see all the others pcs from any wired pc and i can even copy files
> across,
> but after a while(5 to 10 minutes) the "view workgroup computers" option
> takes very long to load and i cannot see any computers other than the ones
> directly connected via a hub. I can ping all the machines from the
> routing
> pc and get a response but the other pcs can only ping each other until the
> workgourp pcs arent viewable again. Another odd thing that happens is in
> quake 3 - if, say he starts a multiplayer game on his side, i can see the
> game on all my machines but i cannot get into it except for the routing
> pc,
> hereas if i start the game on the routing pc alltheother pcs can enter the
> game.
>
> How can I have the network wroking porperly so that a pc can always
> connect
> to another as long as the ap and the routing pc are switched on?
>
> Are my ip address and subnet mask assignments incorrect? are there any
> other
> settings i have forgotten to change?
!