Connected but not really?

I was helping a friend setting a brand new wireless router (Linksys
WRT54GS) and her desktop now is able to connect to the internet. I
enabled WEP. On the same wizard, we select the option of adding a
wireless computer, which then asked if we have a extra cable or a USB
memory device. Unfortunately, since I am not at home, we have
neither. So it directed me to print the automatically generated pass
phrase and 128-bit WEP key.

Moving to the laptop, I brought up the wireless network connectiion
panel. It saw the network which says secured access. I then clicked
"Connect", and it asked for the key. I dutifully entered that long
sequence (in both boxes). Soon enough, it says connected, single
strength = maximum (all green).

I then launch IE, and it was NOT able to get to the internet. Oh, I
also try rebooting the laptop and retry. Same result. Is there
anything else I should have done? I don't recall if the router DHCP
provided an IP to the laptop or not. I'd think so since it did says
connected.

Later I did change the router username and password too, in case
you're wondering.

BTW, I am also baffled by something else remotely related to the
above problem: when you see a secured network, I click connect, put in
a random WEP key, say, 1234567890 (twice), and it would show that I am
connected with strong signal, but I am then unable to beyond that
point. Why would I be conncted to it when I really have given it the
wrong key? Try that yourself.

On 23 Mar 2007 08:47:16 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed) .com>:

>I was helping a friend setting a brand new wireless router (Linksys
>WRT54GS) and her desktop now is able to connect to the internet. I
>enabled WEP.

WEP is too insecure to be of much value. Strong recommend using WPA
instead.

>On the same wizard, we select the option of adding a
>wireless computer, which then asked if we have a extra cable or a USB
>memory device. Unfortunately, since I am not at home, we have
>neither. So it directed me to print the automatically generated pass
>phrase and 128-bit WEP key.

Ignore that advice. Enter all WEP keys in _hex_ to avoid problems --
different products make the conversion to hex differently, which all too
often results in key mismatch problems.

>Moving to the laptop, I brought up the wireless network connectiion
>panel. It saw the network which says secured access. I then clicked
>"Connect", and it asked for the key. I dutifully entered that long
>sequence (in both boxes). Soon enough, it says connected, single
>strength = maximum (all green).
>
>I then launch IE, and it was NOT able to get to the internet. Oh, I
>also try rebooting the laptop and retry. Same result. Is there
>anything else I should have done? I don't recall if the router DHCP
>provided an IP to the laptop or not. I'd think so since it did says
>connected.

Probable WEP key mismatch. If you must use (ugh!) WEP, enter all keys
in _hex_ (including the router).

>Later I did change the router username and password too, in case
>you're wondering.
>
>BTW, I am also baffled by something else remotely related to the
>above problem: when you see a secured network, I click connect, put in
>a random WEP key, say, 1234567890 (twice), and it would show that I am
>connected with strong signal, but I am then unable to beyond that
>point. Why would I be conncted to it when I really have given it the
>wrong key? Try that yourself.

Because you're not really connected -- Windows lies.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

>
> Moving to the laptop, I brought up the wireless network connectiion
> panel. It saw the network which says secured access. I then clicked
> "Connect", and it asked for the key. I dutifully entered that long
> sequence (in both boxes). Soon enough, it says connected, single
> strength = maximum (all green).
>
> I then launch IE, and it was NOT able to get to the internet. Oh, I
> also try rebooting the laptop and retry. Same result. Is there
> anything else I should have done? I don't recall if the router DHCP
> provided an IP to the laptop or not. I'd think so since it did says
> connected.

It can be connected to the router, but in your case, if the machine is
not getting an IP from the router's DHCP server, then applications such
as IE will not be able to access the Internet.

If you go to the Command Prompt on the Windows O/S and enter the command
IPCONFIG /ALL and it shows the IP as zero or the IP starts with 169.,
then machine is not using an IP on the router that's going to allow the
computer to access the Internet, although the machine is connected to
the router wirelessly.

On Mar 23, 4:27 pm, "Mr. Arnold" <"Mr. Arnold"@Arnold.COM> wrote:
> > Moving to the laptop, I brought up the wireless network connectiion
> > panel. It saw the network which says secured access. I then clicked
> > "Connect", and it asked for the key. I dutifully entered that long
> > sequence (in both boxes). Soon enough, it says connected, single
> > strength = maximum (all green).
>
> > I then launch IE, and it was NOT able to get to the internet. Oh, I
> > also try rebooting the laptop and retry. Same result. Is there
> > anything else I should have done? I don't recall if the router DHCP
> > provided an IP to the laptop or not. I'd think so since it did says
> > connected.
>
> It can be connected to the router, but in your case, if the machine is
> not getting an IP from the router's DHCP server, then applications such
> as IE will not be able to access the Internet.
>
> If you go to the Command Prompt on the Windows O/S and enter the command
> IPCONFIG /ALL and it shows the IP as zero or the IP starts with 169.,
> then machine is not using an IP on the router that's going to allow the
> computer to access the Internet, although the machine is connected to
> the router wirelessly.

As John Navas said, XP lied and should not have shown that I am
connected
to the network as it is "meaningless". My definition of connected is
that
you are (well the computer in question, anyway), are in the same net,
having
the IP address class of that network (or if there is a router that
bridge two
separate networks which bridge two network classes). BTW, I did
ipconfig
/release, /renew, /all and it did not get an IP, and yet Windows still
says I am
connected afterwards.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:27 pm, "Mr. Arnold" <"Mr. Arnold"@Arnold.COM> wrote:
>
>>>Moving to the laptop, I brought up the wireless network connectiion
>>>panel. It saw the network which says secured access. I then clicked
>>>"Connect", and it asked for the key. I dutifully entered that long
>>>sequence (in both boxes). Soon enough, it says connected, single
>>>strength = maximum (all green).
>>
>>>I then launch IE, and it was NOT able to get to the internet. Oh, I
>>>also try rebooting the laptop and retry. Same result. Is there
>>>anything else I should have done? I don't recall if the router DHCP
>>>provided an IP to the laptop or not. I'd think so since it did says
>>>connected.
>>
>>It can be connected to the router, but in your case, if the machine is
>>not getting an IP from the router's DHCP server, then applications such
>>as IE will not be able to access the Internet.
>>
>>If you go to the Command Prompt on the Windows O/S and enter the command
>>IPCONFIG /ALL and it shows the IP as zero or the IP starts with 169.,
>>then machine is not using an IP on the router that's going to allow the
>>computer to access the Internet, although the machine is connected to
>>the router wirelessly.
>
>
> As John Navas said, XP lied and should not have shown that I am
> connected
> to the network as it is "meaningless".

That's ridiculous that XP lied. All it could have shown you was that
machine had a connection on the wireless side with good signal strength
or not between the wireless router and the card.

It cannot shown you that the machine had no valid connection to the
router that would allow it to use a DHCP IP from the DHCP server or a
static IP on the router.

> My definition of connected is
> that
> you are (well the computer in question, anyway), are in the same net,
> having
> the IP address class of that network (or if there is a router that
> bridge two
> separate networks which bridge two network classes).

What does the have to do with the fact that the machine is not getting
an IP from the router via DHCP or using a static IP on the router, due
to some kind of mis-configuration of the wireless card or router in
someway, or something is defective?

The wireless machine can have 100% signal strength with the router, but
that doesn't mean its got a valid connection that will allow it to
access other machines on the LAN or access the WAN/Internet.

> BTW, I did
> ipconfig
> /release, /renew, /all and it did not get an IP, and yet Windows still
> says I am
> connected afterwards.

Again, the machine is connected to the router on the wireless side and
XP is showing that you have a connection wirelessly, from a wireless
standpoint.

Windows XP did show you that you didn't get an IP when you did the
IPConfig commands and the machine has no valid connection, by either
returning zeros for the IP or the IP starts with 169.

If the machine had gotten the 169.xxx.xxx.xxx, that IP would allow the
machine to access other machines on the LAN, but the IP is not going to
allow the machine to access the Internet, because it's not using a valid
IP on the router.

If the machine gets the 169, it's an indication there is trouble,
because the machine timed out in trying to obtain an IP from the DHCP
server on the network and the O/S assigned that IP to the NIC.

On the other hand, if you get no IP or it's zero, then the machine
cannot access another machine on the LAN, nor can it access the Internet.

Those are the conditions when the machine cannot access the LAN or
WAN/Internet due to an IP assignment issue.

XP is not lying to you. It shows that you have good signal strength.
It's up to you to decipher whether or not the machine has a valid
connection that will allow it to access the Internet, by using the
proper tools such as IPconfig.

The machine can't get an IP from the router and I suspect that the
machine couldn't use a manually configure NIC using a static IP on the
router either, because of mis-configuration of the wireless NIC, the
router or something is defective between the two.

"Mr. Arnold" <"Mr. Arnold"@Arnold.COM> hath wroth:

>> As John Navas said, XP lied and should not have shown that I am
>> connected
>> to the network as it is "meaningless".
>
>That's ridiculous that XP lied. All it could have shown you was that
>machine had a connection on the wireless side with good signal strength
>or not between the wireless router and the card.

I'll agree mostly with John. XP lies. I've seen it happen many times
and in many different ways. The basic problem is that Microslofts
definition of "connected" is quite different from what would seem
obvious. By the current MS definition and status indication, you are
considered connected when the client and access point have finished
the initial negotiation and exchange of SSID, but before any
encryption, authentication, or authorization takes place. The causual
user would assume that "connected" means that the system is ready to
use. This is not the case.

Had MS used the term "associated" instead of "connected", the whole
bag of sematic worms would not be a problem. Associated merely means
that the AP and client have recognized each other and that additional
steps are required before the connection is ready to use. It would
also have been nice if MS used the term "Ready" when the wireless was
ready to use.

The connection progress indication is also prone to errors, which may
have been the case here. I've seen the WZC and NDIS5 drivers show
that there is no connection, but I'm merilly surfing the web via
wireless. I've also seen the reverse, where it indicates that all is
well, but wireless is dead. A reboot usually cures the problem except
when it's caused by a broken driver.

I've also induced a wrong indication by tinkering with the various
wireless enable/disable mechanisms. Most laptops have:
1. An on/off slide or push button switch.
2. I BIOS based on/off switch.
3. A keyboard <alt><something> on/off combination.
4. Some mechanism for putting the card in power save mode.
5. On/off in the system tray icon.
6. On/off in the Control Panel -> Network -> Wireless applet.
Many times, I've turned it on/off from a random succession of these
and caused either the card, driver, or indicator to produce insane
results. I've also seen wrong indications when the laptop goes out of
hibernate. Eventually, it will figure out that the access point has
long since timed out as the client has driven away, and that it's not
really still connected.

MS also compounded the error by not offering any meaningless
connection progress indication. For example, a failure to properly
exchange encryption keys results in "Aquiring IP Address" which is
both misleading and wrong. When it eventually complains about
"limited connectivity" the user is left with no clue as to what went
wrong. In the traditional "follow the leader" manner, most wireless
device manufacturers have copied MS's lead and supplied as little
useful information as possible. I've been told that it may not be
possible to obtain encryption status information from the NDIS5
driver, but I've never bothered to dive into the code and be sure. I
doubt it because that information is available with the copious
diagnostics available for debugging:
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/wlansupp.mspx>


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> "Mr. Arnold" <"Mr. Arnold"@Arnold.COM> hath wroth:
>
>
>>>As John Navas said, XP lied and should not have shown that I am
>>>connected
>>>to the network as it is "meaningless".
>>
>>That's ridiculous that XP lied. All it could have shown you was that
>>machine had a connection on the wireless side with good signal strength
>>or not between the wireless router and the card.
>
>
> I'll agree mostly with John. XP lies.

<snipped>

I have read the other parts of your posts.

However, from an old dog's standpoint, I look at a wireless connection
like I do a wire connection in regards to a machine using a router, with
a machine having a valid connection to the router that's going to allow
it to access the Internet.

If the router is using DHCP, then the machine's NIC is going to have
valid gateway, subnet and LAN IP(s), along with valid IP(s) to DNS(s).

Or if I am manually using a static IP on the router, then the IP(s) used
must be acceptable IP(s) on the router for static IP(s) along with the
gateway IP and DNS IP(s).

If using DHCP on the router, I issue Ipconfig /all, and the machine has
got valid IP(s) or it doesn't.

If using a static IP on the router, then I try to ping a site. If I
can't ping a site, then there is no valid connection that's going to
allow the machine to access the Internet.

IMHO, one doesn't need visual indicators to know wired or wireless if a
machine has a valid connection that's going to allow Internet access for
the machine.

But of course, most job blow users can hardly turn on a computer. They
need all the help they can get or be given.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:23:24 GMT, "Mr. Arnold" <"Mr.
Arnold"@Arnold.COM> wrote:

>IMHO, one doesn't need visual indicators to know wired or wireless if a
>machine has a valid connection that's going to allow Internet access for
>the machine.

I maintain the same philosophy as the California Dept of Motor
Vehicles has toward vehicle lights and indicators. If the light or
indicator is present, it must function as expected or you get a
citation. I found this out the hard way after getting busted for a
mechanical violation. The lights were there, but all the bulbs were
either blown or rotted out. Wireless should be the same way. If
there's going to be an indicator, it has to be functional and work as
expected.

I'm a bit more techy than most and prefer a more fine grained
indication of connectivity. I want connection progress indicators and
fault logging. After all, it is a sequential process and it doesn't
take much to simply display the current state. Apparently, this is
too much for Microsoft to understand. In Vista, the new and improved
equivalent of Wireless Zero Config offers even fewer indications of
connection state, but does add some useful netsh diagnostics.
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0406.mspx>
<http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/f435edbe-1d50-4774-bae2-0dda33eaeb2f1033.mspx?mfr=true>
I guess the new philosophy is much like Apple's, if you don't
understand the underlying technology, you don't need to know what's
happening. Sometimes, I wonder if Microsoft understands it.

Incidentally, I also want a problem called "ready". It displays a
huge "WAIT" sign on the screen until the system is ready to use. Then
it changes to "READY". That includes interminable boot times, endless
background updates, programs that only run on startup, and of course a
check if there's internet connectivity for those that use Windoze
based PPPoE dialers. Maybe an onscreen traffic light that indicates
when it's unsafe to operate (red), busy but usable (yellow), or ready
to play (green). Yes, I can run ping from a DOS cmd window to see if
things are ready, but I'm getting lazy in my old age and would prefer
to have the computah do the work of telling me when it's done with
it's housekeeping. I should probably write such a program.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS