This may seem like too simple of a solution (no such thing though right?) But my approach to this problem for a consulting client who floats from network to network with a wireless NIC was to just make him a batch file and put a shortcut to it on his desktop. The batch file has two commands in it:
ipconfig/release ipconfig/renew (naturally, a win98 machine needs ipconfig/release_all and ipconfig/renew_all) And I told him to double-click that icon if he ever wasn't getting network traffic. Of course, I got the usual end user questions - why do I have to do this, isn't there a way that I can go from work to home and not have to click this icon, etc... I told him his other option was to get billed for me to make an on-site visit to do the same thing, and it hasn't been an issue since. > -----Original Message----- > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT: Serves Me Right - DHCP problem [7:54402] > > > Evans, TJ wrote: > > > > IIRC: > > Win2k and later detect 'cable disconnects', and de-IP your > > system. > > > > Strangely, they also detect 'cable reconnects' and attempt to > > re-IP (via > > DHCP, or autoconfig if enabled) you at that time. > > Not to beat this to death, but that must indeed be the > explanation. W2K and > XP recognize when the user connects the Ethernet cable and > resend a DHCP > request, assuming DHCP is being used. So when the PC is moved to a new > location and new subnet, it gets a proper address without any > user twidling > beyond inserting the cable. This seems too smart for Windoze, > but I can't > think of any other explanataion. > > So, Chuck's users are using W2K and XP. What could they be > doing wrong?? > > Also, of course, this doesn't solve the problem for wireless > users. That's > not what Chuck was asking about, but it's still an > interesting issue. They > could benefit from Mobile IP. (I really want to recommend that. ;-) > > The reason I say that the cable insertion theory is the > explanation is that > there's no other way for the operating system and protocol > stack to know > that it needs to send a new DHCP request. Remember, we're > talking about > laptops that haven't been shut down. (Maybe they go to sleep > though? Awaking > from sleep might also cause a new DHCP request?) > > The PC can't tell that it's on a different network by just looking at > packets. Even though it could see the IP addresses being used by other > devices, it couldn't know the subnet mask and default gateway to use. > > Contrast this with AppleTalk, which solved this problem years > ago. ;-) An > AppleTalk end node hears the incessant RTMPs coming from > routers. Not only > does the end node learn the address of a gateway to use from > that, but it > also learns its own network number because the local net > number is always > the first one in the RTMP packet. Of course, the tradeoff was those > incessant RTMPs. ;-) But moving a Mac to a new network has always been > pretty straightforward, despite a rather annoying message > that comes up and > confuses users. > > _______________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > www.priscilla.com > > > > > > Thanks! > > TJ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:20 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OT: Serves Me Right - DHCP problem [7:54402] > > > > Nothing to fess up to, Chuck..My w2K works the same way at > > home.. > > connect, get a number..disconnect and reconnect , get a > > different number.. > > Linksys routers are pretty simple devices...I have two of them > > currently > > and > > both give out dhcp on different subnets...I can get an address > > from > > either one > > by the above function....no mobile ip..no special setup..just > > like > > Darrell said... > > > > Larry > > > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > >well S*** Larry, thanks for providing that vital piece of > > troubleshooting > > >relevant information! > > > > > >I still say you are using Mobile IP. > > > > > >fess up ;-> > > > > > >Chuck > > > > > >-- > > > > > >www.chuckslongroad.info > > >like my web site? > > >take the survey! > > > > > > > > > > > >""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > >>thats why we put in wireless in all our buildings..moving > > around is no > > >>problem... > > >> > > >>Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > >> > > >>>Darrell Newcomb wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>Because pre-W2K windows didn't automatically try to renew a > > >>>>lease when the > > >>>>ethernet interface comes back up after being down. So...if > > the > > >>>>old lease > > >>>>hadn't come up for renewal during the time the machine moved > > >>>> > > >>>>from point A to > > >>> > > >>>>B.....the users don't automatically get connectivity. > > >>>> > > >>>Plus with laptops, the user expects to not have to reboot. > > They may just > > >>>move from building to building without shutting down the > > laptop. It might > > >>> > > >go > > > > > >>>to sleep, but you should just be able to hit a button and > > keep working. > > >>> > > >It > > > > > >>>seems like a reasonable user expectation, but alas, we as > > networkers > > >>> > > >haven't > > > > > >>>done a good job in this area. (at least with IP) > > >>> > > >>>The technical issue is that the user is in a different > > subnet and needs a > > >>>new IP address and default gateway after moving to a new > > building, > > >>> > > >location, > > > > > >>>whatever. > > >>> > > >>>Priscilla > > >>> > > >>>>Lots of options to teach the helpdesk how to educate > > >>>>users....but since it > > >>>>'worked before' in Chuck's case it's seen as a (big?) > > >>>>problem(PITA). > > >>>> > > >>>>""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message > > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > >>>> > > >>>>>why is that ? we have segmented avvid network across our > > >>>>> > > >>>>campus. The > > >>>> > > >>>>>laptops are all W2K and they work just > > >>>>>fine without any issues on DHCP...The routers are all > > running > > >>>>> > > >>>>hsrp and > > >>>> > > >>>>>work correctly.. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>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! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>-- > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Larry Letterman > > >>>>>Network Engineer > > >>>>>Cisco Systems Inc. > > >>>>> > > >>-- > > >> > > >>Larry Letterman > > >>Network Engineer > > >>Cisco Systems Inc. > > > ************************************************************** > *************** > > The information in this email is confidential and may be > > legally privileged. > > It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email > > by anyone else > > is unauthorized. > > > > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > > distribution > > or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, > > is prohibited > > and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions > > or advice > > contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions > > expressed in > > the governing KPMG client engagement letter. > > > ************************************************************** > *************** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54660&t=54402 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
