Re: [H] LAN but no internet
Thanks all The bigger problem, though, is that short of a strict host firewall it could still be compromised by anything else on your network. Excluding unpatched systems, the biggest risk IMO would be IoT devices, such as cameras. Frankly, unless there's something specific you need XP for, junk it and replace it with either a tablet/chromebook or even a cheap low-end Windows laptop. this is for a old but big screen T60 that I can't get a decent video driver for in any other OS... other then generic MS. I want to use it as a display for my security cameras that are NOT online ...they are old Panasonic password protected. The T60 would be a nice laptop if it hadn't come with a ATI gaming video card in 07 because unlike a Intel video there have been no updated video drivers with new OSs. I am mostly going to use it as a display in my office so I can see access to the sidewalk leading to the building entry.
Re: [H] LAN but no internet
Yes. So long as you do not have a default gateway set on any interface, and have no static routes, there is no way for it to communicate with any destination that's not at an address belonging to the same network as its interface IP(s). It won't know what to do for a return path for any inbound packet (but it WILL potentially receive them if your firewall forwards something to it, though in practice this would only matter for UDP, as it won't be able to complete a 3-way handshake to establish a socket for TCP communication), and it won't know what to do with an outbound destination. You could enable Windows Firewall and turn off any inbound exceptions as well. So, unless you have some sort of proxy (including something like stunnel) running on another host on your local network, it is largely isolated from the public. This applies to IPv4 anyway--IPv6 has some magic extra autoconfiguration crud, but XP didn't talk IPv6 anyway. The bigger problem, though, is that short of a strict host firewall it could still be compromised by anything else on your network. Excluding unpatched systems, the biggest risk IMO would be IoT devices, such as cameras. Frankly, unless there's something specific you need XP for, junk it and replace it with either a tablet/chromebook or even a cheap low-end Windows laptop. -Original Message- From: Hardware [mailto:hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Winterlight Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 6:47 PM To: hardw...@lists.hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] LAN but no internet yeah... that's the problem. It might work. Even if I can't go to an ip address with the browser can I be sure there isn't another way in hm thanks At 05:25 PM 8/27/2018, you wrote: >If you don't specify a gateway and use direct IP (not workstation name) >connections it might work. > >lopaka > >On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM Winterlight > >wrote: > > > I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for > > security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do > > I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN > > connection? Thanks > > > >
Re: [H] LAN but no internet
It'll work. I actually had this problem this weekend. I set the gateway to the wrong IP, and could access anything locally, but not outside the network. T On 27-Aug.-18 8:47 p.m., Winterlight wrote: yeah... that's the problem. It might work. Even if I can't go to an ip address with the browser can I be sure there isn't another way in hm thanks At 05:25 PM 8/27/2018, you wrote: If you don't specify a gateway and use direct IP (not workstation name) connections it might work. lopaka On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM Winterlight wrote: > I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for > security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do > I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN > connection? Thanks > >
Re: [H] LAN but no internet
yeah... that's the problem. It might work. Even if I can't go to an ip address with the browser can I be sure there isn't another way in hm thanks At 05:25 PM 8/27/2018, you wrote: If you don't specify a gateway and use direct IP (not workstation name) connections it might work. lopaka On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM Winterlight wrote: > I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for > security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do > I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN > connection? Thanks > >
Re: [H] LAN but no internet
For frig sakes. Lopaka beat me to it. :) T On 27-Aug.-18 8:25 p.m., lopaka polena wrote: If you don't specify a gateway and use direct IP (not workstation name) connections it might work. lopaka On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM Winterlight wrote: I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN connection? Thanks
Re: [H] LAN but no internet
Set the gateway to something that doesn't exist? T On 27-Aug.-18 8:08 p.m., Winterlight wrote: I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN connection? Thanks
Re: [H] LAN but no internet
If you don't specify a gateway and use direct IP (not workstation name) connections it might work. lopaka On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM Winterlight wrote: > I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for > security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do > I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN > connection? Thanks > >
[H] LAN but no internet
I have a old XP PRO laptop. I want to use it on my LAN but for security reasons do not want it connected to the internet. So how do I disable the LAN connection without interfering with the LAN connection? Thanks
Re: [H] LAN Question?
Greg, Thanks for this suggestion. I did buy the Netgear GS116NA switches; and, I put the whole LAN into a 'hub-n-spoke' configuration at the new router. After ~2 weeks, the LAN seems to be a bit quicker, clients open faster, file xfr seems to work quicker. No, I don't have any empirical data; just user impression; and I'm the user! Anyway, thank you for your shares. My LAN seems to work better now. This afternoon I will replace the cheap wall-worts that came with the Netgear switches with Jet/CUI (Japan) desktop power modules(12v/1.5A/18W)from DigiKey. Then, I will be donewith LAN upgrade and/or maintenance. Lastly, I'll offer the replaced Dell Power Connect 2716 (semi-managed) switches to a good 'new' home! Best, Duncan On 08/17/2013 20:34, Greg Sevart wrote: Either configuration would be fine assuming the router/switch ports are gigabit. A hub-and-spoke approach is technically superior to the cascaded design you were previously using. In practice it's unlikely to make a material difference either way for low device counts and throughput requirements. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:17 PM To: HWG Subject: [H] LAN Question? Maybe I'm not so smart. My home has 2 switches. I sorta/kinda 'uplink' them; and, on to my Gateway/Router. I have been thininking of just wiring each switch (port 16) to the Gateway/Router. This allows both the East and West sides of my home to connect at the Gateway/Router instead of playing/hoping the 'uplink'/'dwnlink' business between the 2 switches really works(?). I am starting to have doubts. I am willing to let the new Gateway/Router be the 'go between' (sit in the middle). Thoughts, opinions??? Duncan
Re: [H] LAN Question?
Greg, Thank you. OK, I will be moving to a 'hub-and-spoke' approach. Thanks for the name! Yes, I have been operating in a 'cascade' manner since the beginning of my LAN. Time to try a new approach. Nicely, I can do this with just a few new cables! Best, Duncan On 08/17/2013 20:34, Greg Sevart wrote: Either configuration would be fine assuming the router/switch ports are gigabit. A hub-and-spoke approach is technically superior to the cascaded design you were previously using. In practice it's unlikely to make a material difference either way for low device counts and throughput requirements. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:17 PM To: HWG Subject: [H] LAN Question? Maybe I'm not so smart. My home has 2 switches. I sorta/kinda 'uplink' them; and, on to my Gateway/Router. I have been thininking of just wiring each switch (port 16) to the Gateway/Router. This allows both the East and West sides of my home to connect at the Gateway/Router instead of playing/hoping the 'uplink'/'dwnlink' business between the 2 switches really works(?). I am starting to have doubts. I am willing to let the new Gateway/Router be the 'go between' (sit in the middle). Thoughts, opinions??? Duncan
Re: [H] LAN Question?
Either configuration would be fine assuming the router/switch ports are gigabit. A hub-and-spoke approach is technically superior to the cascaded design you were previously using. In practice it's unlikely to make a material difference either way for low device counts and throughput requirements. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:17 PM To: HWG Subject: [H] LAN Question? Maybe I'm not so smart. My home has 2 switches. I sorta/kinda 'uplink' them; and, on to my Gateway/Router. I have been thininking of just wiring each switch (port 16) to the Gateway/Router. This allows both the East and West sides of my home to connect at the Gateway/Router instead of playing/hoping the 'uplink'/'dwnlink' business between the 2 switches really works(?). I am starting to have doubts. I am willing to let the new Gateway/Router be the 'go between' (sit in the middle). Thoughts, opinions??? Duncan
[H] LAN Question?
Maybe I'm not so smart. My home has 2 switches. I sorta/kinda 'uplink' them; and, on to my Gateway/Router. I have been thininking of just wiring each switch (port 16) to the Gateway/Router. This allows both the East and West sides of my home to connect at the Gateway/Router instead of playing/hoping the 'uplink'/'dwnlink' business between the 2 switches really works(?). I am starting to have doubts. I am willing to let the new Gateway/Router be the 'go between' (sit in the middle). Thoughts, opinions??? Duncan
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
j., Thanks for you very kind reply. Ouch! yes I know RTFM. more inline below.. At 01:49 12/17/2007 -0800, you wrote: snip I am always finding something I did not know, it's a ongoing learning process. Yes, but at my age the learning gets more difficult and painful as fast as this stuff changes. Do understand though. What you need are good books that discuss these topics in context of 2k, XP, an how XP/2k interact & differ. All of the MS MCSE training books for each operating system and networking/TCPIP are a good start, so are many of the XP & 2K administration books by authors like Mark Minasi. Yes, am waiting for my closet librarian to find/snag the last Minasi book on w2k. It suddenly got real expensiveor out of print. :) snip No they don't, you have simply lucked out by having created same username/passowrd on all systems in the past. All "workgroup" machines maintain their own username/passwords no mater if 2k or XP. Ah! OK, so all my machines act as independent environments, even though "they seem" to be part of my LAN. Most strange, still. I've used this uname/pw method for the last 8 years. OK, never mind. XP is just tighter in security on a machine-to-machine basiscorrect...? There is no "workgroup" common user database, they're all stand-alone systems using the workgroup name to associate with (see) each other but nothing more. Got it. DING! And all this time I thought using the default "workgroup" for w2k or "MSHome" for XP had some big mana for networking. Hmm. OK, I am a fool. Main difference vs. 2K is that XP comes with Simple File Sharing "feature" which forces all access to shares on a machine through the machine's "guest" account, enabled by default. Once SFS is disabled you can access "machine\share" with any user account from "machine" with rights mapped to "share" same as 2K. Yes, I have run into XP's SFS. Had to disable it to get the ESET nod32 sw to properly update. It seems that nod32 and XP's SFS do not play nice. Even so, with SFS and the XP firewall disabled, XP is just a pill on my LAN. Know it is me, and I will fix it. Just because you have user "bob" on "machine1" and a same name user/pw on "machine2", both machines in same workgroup, does not mean the user is literally the same user. If you rename or delete "bob on either system, then access to that system by "bob" user will fail because he no longer exists. There is no "workgroup\username" method of security. OK, I get this, but this does not appear to be an issue. I only have two users, me and the default administrator (login/pw) account. And all machines use the same 'credentials', well except for there obvious different machine names, MAC addys, IPs, etc. I park that stuff in the TCP/IP realm. Now in a domain a centralized database of users is created and, rights permitting, have access to any machine in the domain. So share "machine1\share" would have "domain\bob" listed for access instead of "machine1\bob", etc... Rename "bob" to "jim" on the domain controller and the shares would automatically understand that bob is jim and that any new user named bob is not the old bob, etc... Yes, this I get. And, I am starting to see the simple efficiency of this. snip No, the workgroup is not a security entity, there is no "workgroup\username" account. Got it now. This is where my blind spot is/was. I assumed that all machines should be in either 'workgroup' or 'mshome' to play nice. My bad. And, more book time. :( Everyone on a standalone machine means all users from that machine's user database which is not shared with workgroup member machines. This is the key! Now I do see what my LAN's trouble with XP is. Now I will hit the books again. In a domain Everyone CAN mean all domain users or it could mean all users of a member machine depending on how it's declared (i.e. domain\everyone vs machine1\everyone). Yes, I see this now. Could it really be more complicated? LOL snip Access Control Lists, the list of who & what they can do to a resource. XP is similar to 2K but if SFS is enabled and/or the xp machine's firewall is setup to block File & Print Sharing. Well, ATM, the XP machine's firewall is disabled and SFS in disabled also (not for this but for other reasons-nod32). OK, Access Control List-ACL. Got it. snip If you create the same name user on all computers with same password, then all should be well. I though so too. That is why I did just this, but XP seems to be really bitchy about it. And, why I started this thread. You have given me a peek at some of the internal stuff I never though of. Mostly, because I did not think it was as complicated as it seems to be. OK, I am still somewhat confused, but I will continue to 'work' with XP on my LAN! Just like if you used the same username/pw combo to access a bunch of websites. BUT change the username and/or password one
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
DHSinclair wrote: > j, > I've put my comments inline below... > At 01:51 12/16/2007 -0800, j maccraw wrote: >> Non-domain system's volume root shares are generally local "users" >> list folder/read data + transverse folder/execute file for this >> folder, sub-folder, and files with most user created subfolders set to >> inherit those settings. > > I do accept that you completely understand this stuff. I admit that I > do not. I accept that winXP does this business 'more restrictively' > than win2k does; as I have seen it in action. Is this a good place to > start? I am always finding something I did not know, it's a ongoing learning process. What you need are good books that discuss these topics in context of 2k, XP, an how XP/2k interact & differ. All of the MS MCSE training books for each operating system and networking/TCPIP are a good start, so are many of the XP & 2K administration books by authors like Mark Minasi. > Yes, I did notice that all the "local" users were all (GXP/-somevalue-). > Never saw 'workgroup' where I work on all my w2k machines. If I log on > to ALL of my machines as UName2/pw2, then I expect that all of my > machines accept this "user" as valid. W2k does. XP does not. Very > strange. That is all. Just very strange. Still. I will get over it, > eventually... :) No they don't, you have simply lucked out by having created same username/passowrd on all systems in the past. All "workgroup" machines maintain their own username/passwords no mater if 2k or XP. There is no "workgroup" common user database, they're all stand-alone systems using the workgroup name to associate with (see) each other but nothing more. Main difference vs. 2K is that XP comes with Simple File Sharing "feature" which forces all access to shares on a machine through the machine's "guest" account, enabled by default. Once SFS is disabled you can access "machine\share" with any user account from "machine" with rights mapped to "share" same as 2K. Just because you have user "bob" on "machine1" and a same name user/pw on "machine2", both machines in same workgroup, does not mean the user is literally the same user. If you rename or delete "bob on either system, then access to that system by "bob" user will fail because he no longer exists. There is no "workgroup\username" method of security. Now in a domain a centralized database of users is created and, rights permitting, have access to any machine in the domain. So share "machine1\share" would have "domain\bob" listed for access instead of "machine1\bob", etc... Rename "bob" to "jim" on the domain controller and the shares would automatically understand that bob is jim and that any new user named bob is not the old bob, etc... > > >> Rule of file share rights is most restrictive settings define the >> effective rights to a share. So a folder set to "full control" for >> "everyone" shared as "read+execute" for "everyone" will only allow RX. >> Directory/file security works similarly: Explicit Deny rights trumps >> implied or >> explicit Allow rights. > > Perhaps I am confused by the "everyone" label. I thought that anybody > in the "workgroup" might be part of "everyone." Seems not for winXP. > WinXP seems to focus on itself. And even when it might be part of a > larger LAN group of "workgroup." Yes, I remain stubborn and confused. No, the workgroup is not a security entity, there is no "workgroup\username" account. Everyone on a standalone machine means all users from that machine's user database which is not shared with workgroup member machines. In a domain Everyone CAN mean all domain users or it could mean all users of a member machine depending on how it's declared (i.e. domain\everyone vs machine1\everyone). > > >> Even with inherit, you can add rights for a subfolder by simply adding >> the user/group & setting their ACL's as long as the parent does not >> set a Deny, or as you have found you can disable inheritance & define >> the ACL explicitly per folder. > > Well there is the ACL acronym again. Is this like Access Control > License? Admit, I just do not get it, but it might be why XP does not > play well with w2k. Perhaps w2k is more liberal. XP is more locked > down. OK... :) Access Control Lists, the list of who & what they can do to a resource. XP is similar to 2K but if SFS is enabled and/or the xp machine's firewall is setup to block File & Print Sharing. > > I have to live with this situation, or, kill the XP machine and redo it > as w2k for basic synergy. Do not wish to do this. I do know that I have > to move to XP sooner or later. Perhaps I need to look at my long range > LAN plan again... LOL! > Ultimately, I do have "it" working, but now when I view my > NetNieghborhood for GXP, it now shows me "Documents" as another 'share' > directory. More research needed I will get this one day. I know > I am thick about this. I ask fo
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
j, I've put my comments inline below... At 01:51 12/16/2007 -0800, j maccraw wrote: Non-domain system's volume root shares are generally local "users" list folder/read data + transverse folder/execute file for this folder, sub-folder, and files with most user created subfolders set to inherit those settings. I do accept that you completely understand this stuff. I admit that I do not. I accept that winXP does this business 'more restrictively' than win2k does; as I have seen it in action. Is this a good place to start? Yes, I did notice that all the "local" users were all (GXP/-somevalue-). Never saw 'workgroup' where I work on all my w2k machines. If I log on to ALL of my machines as UName2/pw2, then I expect that all of my machines accept this "user" as valid. W2k does. XP does not. Very strange. That is all. Just very strange. Still. I will get over it, eventually... :) Rule of file share rights is most restrictive settings define the effective rights to a share. So a folder set to "full control" for "everyone" shared as "read+execute" for "everyone" will only allow RX. Directory/file security works similarly: Explicit Deny rights trumps implied or explicit Allow rights. Perhaps I am confused by the "everyone" label. I thought that anybody in the "workgroup" might be part of "everyone." Seems not for winXP. WinXP seems to focus on itself. And even when it might be part of a larger LAN group of "workgroup." Yes, I remain stubborn and confused. Even with inherit, you can add rights for a subfolder by simply adding the user/group & setting their ACL's as long as the parent does not set a Deny, or as you have found you can disable inheritance & define the ACL explicitly per folder. Well there is the ACL acronym again. Is this like Access Control License? Admit, I just do not get it, but it might be why XP does not play well with w2k. Perhaps w2k is more liberal. XP is more locked down. OK... :) I have to live with this situation, or, kill the XP machine and redo it as w2k for basic synergy. Do not wish to do this. I do know that I have to move to XP sooner or later. Perhaps I need to look at my long range LAN plan again... LOL! Ultimately, I do have "it" working, but now when I view my NetNieghborhood for GXP, it now shows me "Documents" as another 'share' directory. More research needed I will get this one day. I know I am thick about this. I ask for a bit of patience.. Best, Duncan DHSinclair wrote: > Wayne, > No, no win98se machines on the LAN at all. What I think it was that the > "share" directories were set by default to inherit the permissions of > their Parent. The Parent was the hard drive and/or partition! Once I > dorked around with the permissions (unhook from Parent!), the "shares" > suddenly became usable again from my w2k machines. I do not know if this > an optimal solution, but it works like w2k now. I am surprised at just > how locked down XP appears to be! > Best, > Duncan Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
Non-domain system's volume root shares are generally local "users" list folder/read data + transverse folder/execute file for this folder, sub-folder, and files with most user created subfolders set to inherit those settings. Rule of file share rights is most restrictive settings define the effective rights to a share. So a folder set to "full control" for "everyone" shared as "read+execute" for "everyone" will only allow RX. Directory/file security works similarly: Explicit Deny rights trumps implied or explicit Allow rights. Even with inherit, you can add rights for a subfolder by simply adding the user/group & setting their ACL's as long as the parent does not set a Deny, or as you have found you can disable inheritance & define the ACL explicitly per folder. DHSinclair wrote: > Wayne, > No, no win98se machines on the LAN at all. What I think it was that the > "share" directories were set by default to inherit the permissions of > their Parent. The Parent was the hard drive and/or partition! Once I > dorked around with the permissions (unhook from Parent!), the "shares" > suddenly became usable again from my w2k machines. I do not know if this > an optimal solution, but it works like w2k now. I am surprised at just > how locked down XP appears to be! > Best, > Duncan Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
Wayne, No, no win98se machines on the LAN at all. What I think it was that the "share" directories were set by default to inherit the permissions of their Parent. The Parent was the hard drive and/or partition! Once I dorked around with the permissions (unhook from Parent!), the "shares" suddenly became usable again from my w2k machines. I do not know if this an optimal solution, but it works like w2k now. I am surprised at just how locked down XP appears to be! Best, Duncan At 00:14 12/15/2007 -0500, you wrote: At 14:17 12-12-2007, DHSinclair typed: OK, XP is still being bitchy on my LAN. XP will not let me copy/move stuff into its' 'share' directory from my w2ksp4 machines. Is there a 98se machine on this LAN because if there is then you'll want to use WINS Resolution on the 98 machine with all the ip addies of all the machines on the LAN. ---+-- I'm a geek that loves to tweak.
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
Hello Wayne, Friday, December 14, 2007, 11:14:14 PM, you wrote: > Is there a 98se machine on this LAN because if there is then you'll > want to use WINS Resolution on the 98 machine with all the ip addies > of all the machines on the LAN. Yeah, good call. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
Thanks for the reminder Christopher. I'll check that again too. Right now, I seem to have gotten access to the 'share' directory back by ?somehow? de-coupling it from its' parent - d:/ drive. Works for now. Best, Duncan At 14:23 12/12/2007 -0500, you wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, DHSinclair wrote: Tools -> Folder options -> View Tab -> Scroll all the way to the bottom of the "Advanced Settings" window and uncheck "Use simple file sharing" That might help. Christopher Fisk -- BOFH Excuse #286: Telecommunications is downgrading.
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, DHSinclair wrote: Tools -> Folder options -> View Tab -> Scroll all the way to the bottom of the "Advanced Settings" window and uncheck "Use simple file sharing" That might help. Christopher Fisk -- BOFH Excuse #286: Telecommunications is downgrading.
[H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
OK, XP is still being bitchy on my LAN. XP will not let me copy/move stuff into its' 'share' directory from my w2ksp4 machines. When I go to the XP machine and take the properties of the directory it keeps resetting to Read Only! And, it does it immediately on closing the properties window.. :( Do I have to unlock parent attributes from this directory? The parent is d:/ Who or What is controlling the attributes of this directory? How do I smack whoever to play nice on the LAN? Best I know, I have simple file sharing disabled because ESET says this is necessary for proper use of nod32EE on XP. I do know that File & Printer Sharing is enabled in Networking though. All machines are in group=workgroup All machines start/login as Uname2/pw2. Lastly, who is a ?User of the directory listed as: S-1-5-21-2000478354-492894223-1708537768-103 (I know I can find this value in the registry!) Thanks. Best, Duncan
Re: Fwd: Re: [H] LAN access 'tween XP and W2K
Oops! My bad. Was intended as a private reply. OK, I'm outed as a Eudora noob still! One day I'll get Eudora proper w/ReplyAll so I can send private replies:) Best, Duncan At 17:17 05/09/2007 -0400, DHS wrote: I'm answering because your comprehension of all things "server" far exceed my limited learning to date. I've answered inline below between your paragraphs. Bummer. Thought this could be simpler. :) snip snip This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net
Re: [H] LAN access 'tween XP and W2K
With a 2k server your should just set up a domain and join all the systems to that. Then if you login to a workstation or the server with a domain account you can access any share secured with domain account ACLS. Otherwise windows will default to suppling the local login un/pw to the remote system which sounds like it does not match the shares ACLS. Also on XP boxes make sure simple file sharing is turned off, this happens by default when you join XP systems to a domain. Domains are much easier ways to handle multiple machines and you've already got the server, so why no go the extra mile? I do all my boxes shares with domain user ACLS so no matter what machine I use, being a domain user I get access. DHSinclair wrote: > I'm testing WinXP-Pro. So far, so good. Looks to be very stable and > solid. > I am having some trouble getting my XP machine to share/converse with my > W2K clients. The LAN contains a W2KServer, 3 Win2K-pro clients, and the > one WinXP client. > > From my W2KServer, or, W2K clients, the XP client will not allow me to > open > the "share" directory w/o popping up a login window. And, I must login > using > my chosen admin/adminPW. What gives? > > From my XP machine I can freely open any/all "shares" of my other W2K > clients w/o having to enter any UName/PW combo. > > I suspect this is XP-centric, but have not been able to figure our how > to stop XP > from demanding the system credentials from W2K clients. Suggestions? > > Yes, I do use "File and Printer Sharing" on all clients even though > their are no > shared printers. My Brother 2070N is a valid LAN client that all > clients have a > tcp/ip port for. > Really confused about this. > Thanks, > Duncan > > > This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[H] LAN access 'tween XP and W2K
I'm testing WinXP-Pro. So far, so good. Looks to be very stable and solid. I am having some trouble getting my XP machine to share/converse with my W2K clients. The LAN contains a W2KServer, 3 Win2K-pro clients, and the one WinXP client. From my W2KServer, or, W2K clients, the XP client will not allow me to open the "share" directory w/o popping up a login window. And, I must login using my chosen admin/adminPW. What gives? From my XP machine I can freely open any/all "shares" of my other W2K clients w/o having to enter any UName/PW combo. I suspect this is XP-centric, but have not been able to figure our how to stop XP from demanding the system credentials from W2K clients. Suggestions? Yes, I do use "File and Printer Sharing" on all clients even though their are no shared printers. My Brother 2070N is a valid LAN client that all clients have a tcp/ip port for. Really confused about this. Thanks, Duncan This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net
[H] LAN
I am setting up my LAN with three routers so as to isolate my WAP. I found
this setup in a discussion of this question, which apparently accomplishes
this.
LAN1 ---Router1
|
LAN3 --- Router3 --- Internet
|
LAN2 ---Router2
Create an intermediate LAN (LAN3) and NAT both of your LANs to it... route
that LAN3 to the Internet...
use 192.168.1.0/24 for LAN1 ("/24" means "subnet is 255.255.255.0")
use 192.168.2.0/24 for LAN2
use 192.168.3.0/24 for LAN3
--
I plan on leaving my LAN on a 192.168.0.1/24
so I don't have to change any of the existing PCs Network settings. I will
add the LAN3 and use 192.168.3.0/24 for LAN3 and LAN2 use 192.168.2.0/24
for LAN2.
So my setup will be
192.168.0.0/24 for LAN1 = LAN
use 192.168.2.0/24 for LAN2 = WAP
use 192.168.3.0/24 for LAN3 = INTERNET
I don't see how this change would matter but just in case, I thought I
would throw it out to the collective? Anybody think I am doing something
wrong like this?
Thanks!
