Hi Jeff,
I am indeed running XP (SP2, fully patched using WSUS) and two of the four
clients have Firefox 1.5 on them.
After finding that an AP reboot fixed things yesterday I had problems again
today (same scenario). My clients could all continue to use the wireless LAN
okay, but failed to contact the server (with the D-Link card in it) so lost
any ability to access DNS (on the server) and hence resolve any names on the
Internet. Eventually they would also have lost their IP addresses as the DHCP
leases came up for renewal...
....that leads me to think that my D-Link card is losing sync with the D-Link
AP. I've turned off all the speed enhancements on the AP and forced the
server down to 11Mbps (again) but I'm starting to think I might have to
replace the WiFi card in the server for something more modern (e.g. a D-Link
54Mbps card to match the AP).
If it does turn out to be an XP issue, my server runs Windows Server 2003
SP1 so it's also a wider problem.
Grateful for any assistance or ideas that anyone has.
</mark>
"Jeff" wrote:
> I have the same problem and do not use Speed enhancing software. I wonder if
> the problem has something to do with too much stuff loaded in Ram and the
> latest XP update making Windows unable to handle it as well.
>
> Are you running in Windows XP and do you use Firefox 1.5?
>
> Jeff
>
> Mark Wilson wrote:
> > After writing this HUGE post, I checked out
> > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13640889. I turned off any
> > speed enhancing technologies (which in turn reset the AP) and
> > everything jumped into life. I rloaded my original config (saved
> > last week) and everything still worked...
> >
> > ...I can't understand why when a client fails to renew an address
> > from a
> > DHCP server, the infrastructure between teh two hosts needs to be
> > rebooted...
> >
> > arghhhhh!
> >
> > (fingers crossed this stays up for a while now - I used Ethereal to
> > trace
> > the network as I renewed one of the IP addresses (ipconfig -renew
> > Local*) and saw all of the DHCP traffic this time rather than just
> > the original DHCP Discover packet.
> >
> > </Mark>
> >
> > "Mark Wilson" wrote:
> >
> >> I have a D-Link DWL-2000AP+ configured to use WPA-PSK. After I
> >> initially configured this, all of my (Windows XP SP2) clients were
> >> connecting fine, and receiving IP addresses from the (Windows Server
> >> 2003 SP1) DHCP server (lease time 1 day). Then, two days later, as
> >> each lease came up for renewal they failed, one by one. This means
> >> that they all renewed successfully after the initial WPA-PSK
> >> configuration, but have failed to do so even since.
> >>
> >> Because of cabling issues in my building, the DHCP server has two
> >> network interfaces - one wired LAN connection for computers near the
> >> server (this is issuing IP addresses with no problems) and a
> >> wireless connection (a D-Link DWL-520+ PCI adapter) back to a the
> >> access point and another wired subnet upstairs (this is the one with
> >> DHCP problems). I have checked the bindings and the DHCP server is
> >> bound to both adapters (as it has been ever since the server was
> >> rebuilt a couple of months back). IP forwarding is also enabled on
> >> the server so the two subnets effectively become one.
> >>
> >> If I set static IP addresses on the upstairs LAN, both wired and
> >> wireless clients can connect (and use the wireless network to access
> >> the server downstairs); however I would like to go back to using
> >> DHCP and can't see what went wrong!
> >>
> >> There are no errors indicated in the DHCP logs, and nothing obvious
> >> in the event log either. I've carried out a network trace (using a
> >> wired connection, which is then forwarded by the access point to the
> >> server's wireless interface) and can see the DHCP Discover (x4), but
> >> no replies (is this because of the encryption?).
> >>
> >> I can't use WPA2 (because the AP doesn't support it), and will not
> >> use WEP. This solution did work for about 48 hours before it all
> >> started to collapse! I'm pretty sure it's nothing I did because it
> >> started to go wrong over the Christmas holidays when the computers
> >> were on but no-one was using them!
> >>
> >> TIA, Mark
>
>
>