Gary, thanks for your post.
I think that my LAN using DHCP rather than static ip addresses.
When I type ipconfig /all, I get this:
Windows 98 IP Configuration
Host Name . . . . . . . . . : DAD
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.1
Node Type . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast
NetBIOS Scope ID. . . . . . :
IP Routing Enabled. . . . . : No
WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . : No
NetBIOS Resolution Uses DNS : No
0 Ethernet adapter :
Description . . . . . . . . : Intel 8255x-based Integrated Fast Ethernet
Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-06-29-2E-68-E5
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes
IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.38
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.0.0.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . : 192.168.2.1
DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.1
Primary WINS Server . . . . :
Secondary WINS Server . . . :
Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : 07 19 05 10:33:24 PM
Lease Expires . . . . . . . :
Thanks for any help you can give me.
Jim
"Gary Tsang" wrote:
> Are you using static ips, or are you using DHCP?
>
> The MS routers hardcode a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0.
> This would yield a network of up to 254 devices (then subtract one for the
> router itself).
>
> If your subnet mask is not set properly, it would support a network of more
> computers than 254 devices, and MSBBN will probably throw an error similiar
> to what you are seeing.
>
> Goto your command prompt and type ipconfig /all
> Paste the whole output to a message and let's see what is happening.
>
>
>
> --
> Gary Tsang
> Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Shell/User
> http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>
>
> "imerc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9209C956-D6B5-4CF0-BB8A-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I'm running MS Broadband networking on a small home network with Win98
> > PC's.
> >
> > Sometimes when I open up the Microsoft Broadband Network Utility, the
> > "Network Devices" pane (which should show the names of the other PC's on
> > my
> > LAN) says
> > "Network too large to discover and display all devices". It's not a large
> > network at all. What does that message mean?
> >
> > Thanks, Jim
>
>
>