CrossOver cable & wifi

I have a wifi network in my house, all computers have an IP assigned by the
router 192.168.1.x etc etc.

I would like to connect 2 of the computers together via ethernet so they can
transfer files faster. So I've connected Computer A(PC) to computer B(Mac)
with a cross over cable.

The mac gets assigned 169.254.128.236, the pc gets assigned 169.254.170.29.
So when I'm on the mac I can now access the PC shares by going to:

smb://169.254.170.69/Shared Folder

And files will trasnfer using the faster ethernet speed rather than the wifi
speed. Of course I'm still using wifi for the internet connection.

My questions are:

1. When I view My Network places in XP, the shares that appear, how does it
know whether to use the ethernet or wifi?

2. Will I have problems given the fact my machines have 2 IP address's, one
for each type of connection?

3. Am I doing this right?

mark Wrote:
> I have a wifi network in my house, all computers have an IP assigned b
> the
> router 192.168.1.x etc etc.
>
> I would like to connect 2 of the computers together via ethernet s
> they can
> transfer files faster. So I've connected Computer A(PC) to compute
> B(Mac)
> with a cross over cable.
>
> The mac gets assigned 169.254.128.236, the pc gets assigne
> 169.254.170.29.
> So when I'm on the mac I can now access the PC shares by going to:
>
> smb://169.254.170.69/Shared Folder
>
> And files will trasnfer using the faster ethernet speed rather than th
> wifi
> speed. Of course I'm still using wifi for the internet connection.
>
> My questions a
>
> 1. When I view My Network places in XP, the shares that appear, ho
> does it
> know whether to use the ethernet or wifi?
>
> 2. Will I have problems given the fact my machines have 2 IP address's
> one
> for each type of connection?
>
> 3. Am I doing this right?

It'll look for whatever's available on the network and also b
vunerable to conflicts. I'm personally set everything up on wifi an
that'd make your life easier


--
MadmanMaxxie

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:45:04 +0100 mark
from the village of mar-(E-Mail Removed)
felt we might be interested in the following...


> I have a wifi network in my house, all computers have an IP assigned by the
> router 192.168.1.x etc etc.
>
> I would like to connect 2 of the computers together via ethernet so they can
> transfer files faster. So I've connected Computer A(PC) to computer B(Mac)
> with a cross over cable.
>
> The mac gets assigned 169.254.128.236, the pc gets assigned 169.254.170.29

Those IP addresses don't seem right if your router is supposed to be
assigning in the range 192...

--
My reply address is valid, but incoming mail is set to 'auto-delete'
so will not be seen. Please post replies to the group.
XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:23:48 +0100, Tx2 wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:45:04 +0100 mark from the village of
> mar-(E-Mail Removed) felt we might be interested in the following...
>
>
>> I have a wifi network in my house, all computers have an IP assigned by
>> the router 192.168.1.x etc etc.
>>
>> I would like to connect 2 of the computers together via ethernet so they
>> can transfer files faster. So I've connected Computer A(PC) to computer
>> B(Mac) with a cross over cable.
>>
>> The mac gets assigned 169.254.128.236, the pc gets assigned
>> 169.254.170.29
>
> Those IP addresses don't seem right if your router is supposed to be
> assigning in the range 192...

Those are autoconfiguration addresses, they aren't assigned by the router.
They will work, but I believe they will change at each boot. The OP would
probably be better off assigning addresses to the interfaces statically -
in a private network which is *not* 192.168.1.0.

Regards, Ian

On Apr 19, 7:54 pm, Ian Northeast <i...@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:23:48 +0100, Tx2 wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:45:04 +0100 mark from the village of
> > m...@localhost.net felt we might be interested in the following...
>
> >> I have a wifi network in my house, all computers have an IP assigned by
> >> the router 192.168.1.x etc etc.
>
> >> I would like to connect 2 of the computers together via ethernet so they
> >> can transfer files faster. So I've connected Computer A(PC) to computer
> >> B(Mac) with a cross over cable.
>
> >> The mac gets assigned 169.254.128.236, the pc gets assigned
> >> 169.254.170.29
>
> > Those IP addresses don't seem right if your router is supposed to be
> > assigning in the range 192...
>
> Those are autoconfiguration addresses, they aren't assigned by the router.
> They will work, but I believe they will change at each boot. The OP would
> probably be better off assigning addresses to the interfaces statically -
> in a private network which is *not* 192.168.1.0.
>
> Regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd put the wired ethernet IP addresses on a static IP in the
192.168.1.xxx range. That way you can access either via wired or
wireless. Windows and OS X should be smart enough to automagically
choose a combination of wired/wireless. I don't see the value of
having the wired and wireless in different subnets? Actually, I don't
see how you can connect at the moment to the 169.254.xxx.yyy addresses
simultaneously with 192.168.1.xxx addresses, unless your subnet is
set to a very, very wide scope at present?

P.S. if it's a modern Mac, you dont' need a crossover cable as it has
gigabit ethernet, which does automatic switching - so should be happy
with a straight thru cable.

Ric

In article <(E-Mail Removed) om>, ric
says...
> Actually, I don't
> see how you can connect at the moment to the 169.254.xxx.yyy addresses
> simultaneously with 192.168.1.xxx addresses, unless your subnet is
> set to a very, very wide scope at present?
>
Very easily even on a 255.255.255.0 subnet. Have a similar
configuration at a clients where the wireless nic talks to the LAN and
the wired one to a print server running a printer/cutter.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:04:06 -0700, ric wrote:

> On Apr 19, 7:54 pm, Ian Northeast <i...@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:23:48 +0100, Tx2 wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:45:04 +0100 mark from the village of
>> > m...@localhost.net felt we might be interested in the following...
>>
>> >> I have a wifi network in my house, all computers have an IP assigned
>> >> by the router 192.168.1.x etc etc.
>>
>> >> I would like to connect 2 of the computers together via ethernet so
>> >> they can transfer files faster. So I've connected Computer A(PC) to
>> >> computer B(Mac) with a cross over cable.
>>
>> >> The mac gets assigned 169.254.128.236, the pc gets assigned
>> >> 169.254.170.29
>>
>> > Those IP addresses don't seem right if your router is supposed to be
>> > assigning in the range 192...
>>
>> Those are autoconfiguration addresses, they aren't assigned by the
>> router. They will work, but I believe they will change at each boot. The
>> OP would probably be better off assigning addresses to the interfaces
>> statically - in a private network which is *not* 192.168.1.0.
>>
>> Regards, Ian

> I'd put the wired ethernet IP addresses on a static IP in the
> 192.168.1.xxx range. That way you can access either via wired or
> wireless. Windows and OS X should be smart enough to automagically choose
> a combination of wired/wireless.

No, that won't work. With both interfaces in the same subnet they won't
know which to use, for instance they may attempt to access the router down
the wire where it isn't.

> I don't see the value of having the
> wired and wireless in different subnets?

It makes it work. Traffic is sent via the interface which is in the same
subnet as the destination. If there isn't one then (in a simple case) the
default route is used - this has to be in the subnet of one of the
interfaces.

> Actually, I don't see how you
> can connect at the moment to the 169.254.xxx.yyy addresses
> simultaneously with 192.168.1.xxx addresses, unless your subnet is set
> to a very, very wide scope at present?

The netmask on an autoconfigured interface is 255.255.0.0 which is
indeed quite wide but this isn't relevant. A packet whose destination
address is in the ethernet's subnet, which in this case will only be
those destined for the ethernet address of the machine at the other end of
it, is sent down it. The default route continues to point to the router
whose address is in the WiFi's subnet, so everthing else goes down there,
including anything addressed to the other machine's WiFi.

Have you ever used a system with multiple interfaces?

Regards, Ian

> > I don't see the value of having the
> > wired and wireless in different subnets?
>
> It makes it work. Traffic is sent via the interface which is in the same
> subnet as the destination. If there isn't one then (in a simple case) the
> default route is used - this has to be in the subnet of one of the
> interfaces.

Yes, but it'd work if, say, one PC's wired interface was on
192.168.1.2 and the wireless one on 192.168.1.3, wouldn't it? If all
wired and wireless network interfaces were in the same IP subnet then
the OP could use wired or wireless with impunity to connect between
the two devices - in effect they could also plug in the wired
connection to automagically give themselves a speed boost for large
file transfer.
However, I'm not sure whether there'd be any penalties in time taken
to update the routing table? Not sure about this and would be
interested in comments...

>
> > Actually, I don't see how you
> > can connect at the moment to the 169.254.xxx.yyy addresses
> > simultaneously with 192.168.1.xxx addresses, unless your subnet is set
> > to a very, very wide scope at present?
>
> The netmask on an autoconfigured interface is 255.255.0.0 which is
> indeed quite wide but this isn't relevant. A packet whose destination
> address is in the ethernet's subnet, which in this case will only be
> those destined for the ethernet address of the machine at the other end of
> it, is sent down it. The default route continues to point to the router
> whose address is in the WiFi's subnet, so everthing else goes down there,
> including anything addressed to the other machine's WiFi.

Take your point, I was thinking that the OP'd managed to route to
169.254.xxx.yyy via a network interface with an IP of 192.168.xxx.yyy,
which would need a very wide subnet! Blame this on my lack of coffee
and sleep, and a 3 year old with Chickenpox. In your example, we're
talking dual-homed, aren't we, with wired/wireless as two separate
subnets.
>
> Have you ever used a system with multiple interfaces?
>
> Regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No need to be rude! I wasn't disagreeing with anyone, I was just
commenting...