Going Slowly Nuts!

I am a complete beginner at networking computers. I suspect the basics
are pretty easy really and it is just me who is a complete buffoon!

However, the problem: I have a Belkin Modem Router (F5D7632-4) set up. A
desktop using a Belkin PCI card and a Laptop with Centrino. Both running
Windows XP.

Both work perfectly - but not at the same time! It is either the one or
the other - both show a connection, but only one can use the internet
connection etc.

I have obviously missed something so extremely fundamental. So can
someone please help?

gb
(answers in a plain brown envelope etc.)

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:09:35 +0100, Gary Bell <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>However, the problem: I have a Belkin Modem Router (F5D7632-4) set up. A
>desktop using a Belkin PCI card and a Laptop with Centrino. Both running
> Windows XP.
>
>Both work perfectly - but not at the same time! It is either the one or
>the other - both show a connection, but only one can use the internet
>connection etc.
>
>I have obviously missed something so extremely fundamental. So can
>someone please help?

How long has this been going on? I notice exactly the same question
in the DSLReports.com forum at from 09/15/05:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14372647
I agree with the very last answer. You have your DSL modem plugged
into a LAN port instead of a WAN port. Your client computers are
getting their IP address from Pipex.net instead of from your router.
It works one at a time because Pipex will only assign one IP address
at a time per connection.

--
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:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:09:35 +0100, Gary Bell <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>However, the problem: I have a Belkin Modem Router (F5D7632-4) set up. A
>>desktop using a Belkin PCI card and a Laptop with Centrino. Both running
>> Windows XP.
>>
>>Both work perfectly - but not at the same time! It is either the one or
>>the other - both show a connection, but only one can use the internet
>>connection etc.
>>
>>I have obviously missed something so extremely fundamental. So can
>>someone please help?
>
>
> How long has this been going on? I notice exactly the same question
> in the DSLReports.com forum at from 09/15/05:
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14372647
> I agree with the very last answer. You have your DSL modem plugged
> into a LAN port instead of a WAN port. Your client computers are
> getting their IP address from Pipex.net instead of from your router.
> It works one at a time because Pipex will only assign one IP address
> at a time per connection.
>

Thanks for the response Jeff, but in this case it isn't possible as it
is a modem/router and the DSL connection is directly from the telephone
micro filter so therefore different, I checked of course just in case
anyway.

What is even more strange, I connected the laptop directly by cable into
a LAN port and it wouldn't work over that (not even connect to the
router setup on 192.168.2.1) when the desktop was OK on the wireless
side.... I disabled the desktop and the laptop worked fine again, both
on Lan and wireless.

gb

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:20:26 +0100, Gary Bell <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>>>However, the problem: I have a Belkin Modem Router (F5D7632-4) set up.

>Thanks for the response Jeff, but in this case it isn't possible as it
>is a modem/router and the DSL connection is directly from the telephone
>micro filter so therefore different, I checked of course just in case
>anyway.

I guessed it was a different model because I couldn't find an
F5D7632-4. Nothing on the support page. I did find a F5D7631-4
| http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=248470
which is as you describe but not yet available. There are references
to a F5D732-4 all over the internet, so I guess it exists, but I
couldn't figure out exactly what it is. Could you double check the
model number?

>What is even more strange, I connected the laptop directly by cable into
>a LAN port and it wouldn't work over that (not even connect to the
>router setup on 192.168.2.1) when the desktop was OK on the wireless
>side.... I disabled the desktop and the laptop worked fine again, both
>on Lan and wireless.

Well, that just proves it's not the wireless part of the puzzle. If
it's not a wiring issue, it might one of the dozen or so theories
expounded in the thread I previously mentioned:
| http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14372647
See if anything sounds familar. Since the model number and symptoms
are exactly the same as yours, methinks contacting the OP in that
thread may help.

You might consider scribbling down your settings and peforming a grand
reset to the router. Sometimes that helps (when I can't think of
anything better to try).

--
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

"Gary Bell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> Thanks for the response Jeff, but in this case it isn't possible as it is
> a modem/router and the DSL connection is directly from the telephone micro
> filter so therefore different, I checked of course just in case anyway.
>
> gb

If Your DSL is ADSL you shouldn't have a filter installed before the
modem/router. The filters only get used for your house phones.

alien

> If Your DSL is ADSL you shouldn't have a filter installed before the
> modem/router. The filters only get used for your house phones.

In the old days, in the UK, BT would come and install an ADSL faceplate
on the master phone socket thus seperating out the ADSL frequencies from
the phone frequencies. All extension sockets were off this ready
filtered secondary and thus no filters were needed.

Then along came cost cutting and the introduction of the BT self
install. At this point the customer sticks microfilters on ALL phone
outlets to remove the DSL frequencies from the audio for the phone.

In the UK, it is illegal for anyone other than the phone company to
change or tamper with the master socket so fitting of an alternate
filtering faceplate, while an option, is illegal.

Given that all extension sockets are off the master and that nothing has
changed on the master, fitting filters on all sockets is the correct
thing to do and given that Gary lives in Dorchester, Dorset, UK, I think
he has done the right thing. There is no bad effect on what he has
done.

David.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:20:26 +0100, Gary Bell <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>However, the problem: I have a Belkin Modem Router (F5D7632-4) set up.
>
>
>>Thanks for the response Jeff, but in this case it isn't possible as it
>>is a modem/router and the DSL connection is directly from the telephone
>>micro filter so therefore different, I checked of course just in case
>>anyway.
>
>
> I guessed it was a different model because I couldn't find an
> F5D7632-4. Nothing on the support page. I did find a F5D7631-4
> | http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=248470
> which is as you describe but not yet available. There are references
> to a F5D732-4 all over the internet, so I guess it exists, but I
> couldn't figure out exactly what it is. Could you double check the
> model number?
>
>
>>What is even more strange, I connected the laptop directly by cable into
>>a LAN port and it wouldn't work over that (not even connect to the
>>router setup on 192.168.2.1) when the desktop was OK on the wireless
>>side.... I disabled the desktop and the laptop worked fine again, both
>>on Lan and wireless.
>
>
> Well, that just proves it's not the wireless part of the puzzle. If
> it's not a wiring issue, it might one of the dozen or so theories
> expounded in the thread I previously mentioned:
> | http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14372647
> See if anything sounds familar. Since the model number and symptoms
> are exactly the same as yours, methinks contacting the OP in that
> thread may help.
>
> You might consider scribbling down your settings and peforming a grand
> reset to the router. Sometimes that helps (when I can't think of
> anything better to try).
>

Jeff,

I followed your advice and had a look at the messages on the
"Broadbandreports.com" forum (and joined). Sent an e-mail to the chap
who had the same problem but as yet no reply. However reading through
the other threads I noticed that one guy (an IT Tech) had a "Beta"
Firmware update for this very router. To cut the story short - I
installed the update and it seems to have resolved the problem (and some
other minor things).

So I am at present very pleased and grateful to you for pointing me in
the right direction.

cheers
gb

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:29:04 +0100, Gary Bell <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I followed your advice and had a look at the messages on the
>"Broadbandreports.com" forum (and joined). Sent an e-mail to the chap
>who had the same problem but as yet no reply. However reading through
>the other threads I noticed that one guy (an IT Tech) had a "Beta"
>Firmware update for this very router. To cut the story short - I
>installed the update and it seems to have resolved the problem (and some
>other minor things).

Congratulations and amazing. I have a really bad attitude about
Belkin as a company. If you search their product list, most have had
at most 1 firmware update. Many have had none, especially obsolete
products. Meanwhile, Linksys, Netgear, and Dlink have had many
updates and fixes including for products they no longer sell. Either
Belkin is perfect and makes no mistakes on their firmware, or they
have a problem in the firmware update department.

>So I am at present very pleased and grateful to you for pointing me in
>the right direction.

Thank Google. I couldn't have found anything without Google.
--
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

David Taylor wrote:
> Given that all extension sockets are off the master and that nothing has
> changed on the master, fitting filters on all sockets is the correct
> thing to do and given that Gary lives in Dorchester, Dorset, UK, I think
> he has done the right thing. There is no bad effect on what he has
> done.

But what Gary wrote was,

> Thanks for the response Jeff, but in this case it isn't
> possible as it is a modem/router and the DSL connection is
> directly from the telephone micro filter so therefore
> different, I checked of course just in case anyway.


If the DSL connection is directly from the telephone micro
filter, that filter is going to filter out ADSL frequencies
(unless defective, which might allow it to pass the DSL
frequencies with little or no problem). ONLY a phone should
connect directly to a micro filter. And you might check to
see if any of the filters are installed backwards. The
filter works properly only when oriented in the correct
direction.

Cheers!

jim b.



--
Unix is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

> frequencies with little or no problem). ONLY a phone should
> connect directly to a micro filter. And you might check to
> see if any of the filters are installed backwards. The
> filter works properly only when oriented in the correct
> direction.

None of the microfilters that I've seen in the UK have a just DSL option
or just a phone option, they all have two ports. One for phone, one for
the ADSL modem. They don't connect two ways round, not possible. Yours
might, ours can't.

David.