mobile IP!!! Thanks, Cil!!!! I'll throw that one out to the folks I'm working with!
-- www.chuckslongroad.info like my web site? take the survey! ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You could try Mobile IP. That would require more design and configuration on > your part than perhaps you wanted to get into, though, espeically if there > are lots of mobile users. But it's proven to be quite useful for wirless > mobile users who have the same problem that you're describing, of course. > > It's not just Windoze that has the problem, is it? A Mac wouln't > automatically figure out that you need a new IP address and default gateway > either. But at least you don' t have to reboot with any versions of Mac OS. > Well, you may not have to reboot a PC either if al you do is release and > renew, or do you with 98 and earlier? > > Now, with AppleTalk, this sort of thing was much more automatic. But we > still haven't achieved that level of sophistication in the IP world. ;-0 > There is the Zero Conf group in IETF working on stuff like this. > > Priscilla > > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > I see I should have made this one a "Friday Folly" :-> > > > > In a Big Flat Bridged Network, a mobile user unplugs the laptop > > at one > > office, drives over to the next office, plugs back in, and no > > further action > > is required. The Windoze PC has retained it's IP address, and > > the network > > doesn't care about location, because it is one big flat network. > > > > However, in the brand new ATM based AVVID ready routed network, > > said mobile > > user is now in a different segment in each location. With > > Windoze, you have > > to manually intervene. Sometimes you have to release the IP > > address, reload > > the computer, and then get your new DHCP assignment. Users > > don't like this. > > After all, now they have to do something, whereas before they > > did not. Never > > mind the higher speed, the failover capability of the routers, > > the new 100 > > mbs switches rather than 10mbs. They have to take an extra step > > or two in > > order to log in. > > > > This is normal behaviour for Windoze machines, and maybe for > > DHCP clients in > > general. I have had to do this release / renew for years. > > > > But to the customer, who is pretty naive in terms of > > networking, there is a > > "problem" that was caused by the new routers. To the users, > > there is a > > problem that never existed before. > > > > Like I said, serves me right. You give a customer a great new > > network, and > > you break something so rudimentary that it never would have > > occurred > > otherwise. :-> > > > > -- > > > > www.chuckslongroad.info > > like my web site? > > take the survey! > > > > > > > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in > > message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Spare us the mystery and tell us what you're getting at. :-) > > Did you > > forget > > > to tell the DHCP server to provide the correct default > > gateway address to > > > the PCs? That's my guess, since you say everything else like > > helper > > > addresses, etc. is configured correctly. Just a late-night > > theory, > > waiting > > > for Jay Leno to come on..... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > > > > > The AVVID solution I sold a few months ago is gong through > > > > implementation. > > > > This project has been problematic for a lot of reasons, so > > it > > > > is not unusual > > > > for a round of e-mails from the customer complaining about > > one > > > > thing or > > > > another. > > > > > > > > Today was a good one, however. Shows to go you have to ask > > > > things you > > > > normally wouldn't think about. > > > > > > > > DHCP - no big deal. Works fine. All of us have probably > > used it > > > > or > > > > configured it. All of us probably have experience with > > running > > > > several small > > > > sites off a single DHCP server at a central site. > > > > > > > > So why is the customer complaining about DHCP not working, > > and > > > > it's because > > > > our routers are screwed up and Microsoft told them that they > > > > would have to > > > > change their network addressing to a single class B rather > > than > > > > subnets of > > > > /16 space, the way I designed it? > > > > > > > > The routers are configured correctly. The network is > > designed > > > > correctly - no > > > > overlapping subnets. IP helpering is configured correctly. > > > > > > > > Problem occurs with several users, different NIC's, either > > > > Win2K or WinXP. > > > > No one common factor. Worked just fine before we put the new > > > > routers in. > > > > > > > > Recognizing that Microsoft is full of C**P and their TCP > > stack > > > > is S**T, > > > > still, why the problem. > > > > > > > > Gee, what happens to DHCP when you go from a single flat > > > > bridged network to > > > > a segmented routed network? Especially to mobile users, who > > > > travel from site > > > > to site for various reasons on a regular basis? > > > > > > > > Serves me right > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > www.chuckslongroad.info > > > > like my web site? > > > > take the survey! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54436&t=54402 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
