W98 networki enigma

Win98 can't access the internet, neighborhood OK.

I have some kind of network problem which I don't understand

The physical topography of the network is that the computer in question
is ethernet wired to a simple hub which is ethernet wired to an Airlink
router which is uplinked to a cable modem. There are no other computers
currently connected to the hub^1 and there are 2 other computers
currently ethernet wired to the router. Presently there are no wireless
connxns to the router, but recently a guest was connecting wirelessly to
the router just fine.

The wired computer in question, call it #3, can boot Win 98, Ub 7.04, or
Linspire 5. Both Linux distros on the same box can connect just fine.
The problem I'm focusing on here is the Win98 install partition's
problem, which W98 can see the local network and which can see the
router's config page and which can ping the cable modem's IP, but which
cannot see the modem's config page by IP address and cannot access
anything beyond the local network shares and the router's configuration
page.

The reason for mentioning the linux distro connectivity is to assert
that it isn't a simple hardware connectivity problem with the machine or
its integrated network lan function or the hub or the ethernet cable to
the router or the router's firmware. So the linux partition successes
is to address some kind of physical hardware connectivity problems.

I have performed the Win nic/ mobo-lan/ driver install about 8 different
ways and times without much problem. I've installed from the mobo mfr's
disk, both by install .exe and with the driver files letting Win find
them. I've configured for Win system to do with or without IRQ
steering. Any time there have been any alerts seen in the system
information they have been remedied.

Currently I can see the network neighborhood over tcp/ip without using
netbeui. I can send other winboxes in the network a winpopup message.
I can modify the router's configuration with #3. I cannot see the
modem's configuration page by IP address, or anything else beyond the
router. That's when computer #3 is in Win98 mode. When it is in Ubuntu
or Linspire, it can access the internet without problems.


^1 the hub is in there because later there will be two computers at the
same station at the end of an ethernet cable. The hub presence isn't
causing any trouble for the Ub/Lin OSes, it isn't logical that it would
be a factor for the Win partition.


--
Mike Easter

"Mike Easter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Win98 can't access the internet, neighborhood OK.
>
> I have some kind of network problem which I don't understand
>
> The physical topography of the network is that the computer in question is ethernet
> wired to a simple hub which is ethernet wired to an Airlink router which is
> uplinked to a cable modem. There are no other computers currently connected to the
> hub^1 and there are 2 other computers currently ethernet wired to the router.
> Presently there are no wireless connxns to the router, but recently a guest was
> connecting wirelessly to the router just fine.
>
> The wired computer in question, call it #3, can boot Win 98, Ub 7.04, or Linspire
> 5. Both Linux distros on the same box can connect just fine. The problem I'm
> focusing on here is the Win98 install partition's problem, which W98 can see the
> local network and which can see the router's config page and which can ping the
> cable modem's IP, but which cannot see the modem's config page by IP address and
> cannot access anything beyond the local network shares and the router's
> configuration page.

Ping 127.0.0.1
If it fails it may be a TCP/IP stack problem.

Ping each computer from the other using the UNC:
=ping ^ computername
If it fails either way there's an IP or Name resolution problem.

>
> The reason for mentioning the linux distro connectivity is to assert that it isn't
> a simple hardware connectivity problem with the machine or its integrated network
> lan function or the hub or the ethernet cable to the router or the router's
> firmware. So the linux partition successes is to address some kind of physical
> hardware connectivity problems.

Firewall permission?
Same workgroup, IP range and subnet?
Static or Dynamic IP?

>
> I have performed the Win nic/ mobo-lan/ driver install about 8 different ways and
> times without much problem. I've installed from the mobo mfr's disk, both by
> install .exe and with the driver files letting Win find them. I've configured for
> Win system to do with or without IRQ steering. Any time there have been any alerts
> seen in the system information they have been remedied.
>
> Currently I can see the network neighborhood over tcp/ip without using netbeui. I
> can send other winboxes in the network a winpopup message. I can modify the
> router's configuration with #3. I cannot see the modem's configuration page by IP
> address, or anything else beyond the router. That's when computer #3 is in Win98
> mode. When it is in Ubuntu or Linspire, it can access the internet without
> problems.
>
>
> ^1 the hub is in there because later there will be two computers at the same
> station at the end of an ethernet cable. The hub presence isn't causing any
> trouble for the Ub/Lin OSes, it isn't logical that it would be a factor for the Win
> partition.

Personally I'd dump the hub and use a switch to avoid collisions.

http://www.windowsnetworking.com/art...indows_9598ME/

http://www.practicallynetworked.com/...hoot_index.htm

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:16:08 -0700, Mike Easter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The physical topography of the network is that the computer in question
>is ethernet wired to a simple hub which is ethernet wired to an Airlink
>router which is uplinked to a cable modem. There are no other computers
>currently connected to the hub^1 and there are 2 other computers
>currently ethernet wired to the router. Presently there are no wireless
>connxns to the router, but recently a guest was connecting wirelessly to
>the router just fine.

Please post a routing table plus details of ip addressing and dhcp (if
used)

route print > temp.txt
to get the routing table


Jim.

Brian A. wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> Win98 can't access the internet, neighborhood OK.

Thanks for your replies.

> Ping 127.0.0.1
> If it fails it may be a TCP/IP stack problem.

Succeeds.

> Ping each computer from the other using the UNC:
> =ping ^ computername
> If it fails either way there's an IP or Name resolution problem.

This is a complicated answer. Briefly I can't ping #3 from #2 but I can
ping #2 from #3 by name. The business of what #2 thinks is #3 name and
what #3 thinks is #2 name confuses me. As a rule, I give a computer a
simple name, not a domainname, but sometimes an old domain name gets
attached to a computer's name by mechanisms not understood by me.

I can ping either one from the other by its NAT assigned IP address.

The router is configured to get a DNS from DHCP and also to use opendns
nameservice. This airlink router gives me less flexibility about that
than my previous Linksys did.

> Firewall permission?

There is no software firewall on either W98.

> Same workgroup, IP range and subnet?

Yes.

> Static or Dynamic IP?

The router is configured to get its IP dynamically from the cable modem.
Each Win is configured to get its IP dynamically, which it gets from the
router. The router is not configured to have a domainname, but if I
ping a computer simplename, dos pings the simple+domainname - which
domainname must have been derived from some mail identity some years
ago.

> Personally I'd dump the hub and use a switch to avoid collisions.

I took the hub out for testbed purposes to save us all confusion.

> http://www.windowsnetworking.com/art...indows_9598ME/
>
> http://www.practicallynetworked.com/...hoot_index.htm

I've been to practically networked before; I'll take a look at both of
those. Thanks.

--
Mike Easter

James Egan wrote:
> Mike Easter

>> The physical topography of the network

Updates and revisions:

Test configuration has been simplified to two computer network, both
ethernet wired to router, no hub, router to cable modem, both computers
running Win98se - computer temporary names #1 & #3, #3 is the problem
computer.

#3 hardware = Mobo SiS 741 w/ integrated LAN, audio, graphics - the mobo
cd disk tools recognizes the LAN as a SiS 900.

Win doesn't like to install the drivers for the hardware with the Win
hardware recognition wizard pointed at the .inf & .sys files on the mobo
mfr's CD, Error installing driver, windows was unable to install the SiS
900 Fast Ethernet Adpater device, unknown device, windows encountered an
error while trying to install a driver for this device, error code 1F6.

-- but the install tools on the mobo CD accomplish the driver
installation. When win wants to 're-recognize' the alleged PCI card
hardware, I cancel that operation because the sytem shows that the
network card is installed with no trouble marks, as well as the other
integrated functions.

> Please post a routing table plus details of ip addressing and dhcp (if
> used)
>
> route print > temp.txt
> to get the routing table

The route print for # 1 [network & internet satisfactory] is:

Active Routes:

Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface
Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.145
1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.145
1
192.168.1.145 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.145
1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.145
1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.145 0.0.0.0
1

The route print for # 3 [no internet] is:

Active Routes:

Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface
Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.175
1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.175 192.168.1.175
1
192.168.1.175 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.175 192.168.1.175
1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.1.175 192.168.1.175
1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.175 192.168.1.175
1



--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:03:38 -0700, "Mike Easter" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The route print for # 3 [no internet] is:

It all looks to be in order and there is no apparent reason why it
isn't working.

I can't suggest anything apart from maybe try it with a static ip
address, enable dns in the tcp/ip properties and enter your isp's
nameserver addresses in those settings.


Jim.

James Egan wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> The route print for # 3 [no internet] is:
>
> It all looks to be in order and there is no apparent reason why it
> isn't working.

I don't know how to analyze the route table information, but the two #1
& #3 aren't 'symmetrical' in terms of a differences besides the
different NAT addresses.

If you consider the two to each be a table of 7 rows and 5 columns,
there is a difference between #1 & #3 at row 7 column 4. I have no idea
what that means.

> I can't suggest anything apart from maybe try it with a static ip
> address, enable dns in the tcp/ip properties and enter your isp's
> nameserver addresses in those settings.

Yes, I think I'm going to tinker with those ideas.


--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:50:36 -0700, "Mike Easter" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>James Egan wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> The route print for # 3 [no internet] is:
>>
>> It all looks to be in order and there is no apparent reason why it
>> isn't working.
>
>I don't know how to analyze the route table information, but the two #1
>& #3 aren't 'symmetrical' in terms of a differences besides the
>different NAT addresses.
>
>If you consider the two to each be a table of 7 rows and 5 columns,
>there is a difference between #1 & #3 at row 7 column 4. I have no idea
>what that means.
>

I did notice that but it was the machine which is working correctly
that is giving the unexpected route. 255.255.255.255 is a broadcast
route and machine #3 lists the line correctly. I don't know what
causes machine #1 to output that line.


Jim.

Mike Easter wrote:
> Win98 can't access the internet, neighborhood OK.

OK, I'm back with fundamentally the same problem which I'm completely
convinced is a Win98 configuration or install related problem -- the
hardware and topology are different, but many fundamentals are the same.
I'm doing this on a different #3 computer with different wireless PCI
card.

In the simplest troubleshooting model, we have a two computer network
via an AirLink AR325W router, to which W98se computer #1 is ethernet
hardwired and W98se computer #3 is running a wireless PCI card which has
been changed to an AirLink101 AWLH4130 which runs an Atheros chipset
known as ar5212.

#3 was initially configured wired ethernet integrated mobo LAN, then
'converted' by adding the wireless PCI card. This requires disabling
the wired hardware in the system to do any good at all.

With some interesting work on the linux installs which can also boot on
#3, I now have both Linspire and Ubuntu able to access the internet
using either their wired connectivity or their wireless connectivity.
The goal of this machine is to be rolled into another room where it will
need wireless connectivity only. Currently I'm doing my troubleshooting
with it nearby.

The baffling features of the wireless dysfunction on the W98 #3 boot are
that Win can see quite a bit, but not the internet. Win can see the #1
shares and the printer connected to #1 in the network neighborhood. It
can also see the router's configuration page at 192.168.1.1 - however,
it can't see http one step beyond that to the cable modem's
configuration page at 192.168.100.1 - and it can't see the internet by
name or IP address.

It seems as if the #3 Win isn't getting past the router except for the
shares - maybe as if netbeui was working past the router, but tcp/ip
wasn't - but that tcp/ip worked right up to the router.

In addition, a wireless monitor app installed on #3 shows signal
strength nicely, and shows that #3 is able to get an IP address, which
is also reflected in the router's client list by computer name, IP, and
MAC.

I don't know where #3 is getting its name when it determines it itself.
If I msdos ping localhost, the name which is returned is my name
attached to a 3 level domainname which I am familiar with, but neither
of those names is the computer's name as entered in the network
configuration. My name shows in the system as the registered to. My
name also shows as the logon. I don't know if this name confusion is
important or not, but it is different from the way the #1 computer
performs, which works correctly. The router calls #3 the name which I
gave it in the network configuration section, not my name. In network
neighborhood #3 shows up as the name in the network configuration, not
my name attached to a domainname.

#3 Msdos can ping #1 by its name, but it seems like resolving that is a
little pokey. #3 msdos can ping its own name, which also seems pokey to
resolve.

When I use winpopup to send messages, #1 alerts me that someone is on
the network with my name, but I send the messages with the computers'
names, which works fine both ways, 1>3 & 3>1.

#1 msdos can ping #3 by its name, with much faster resolution and
performance.

#3 route print is:

Active Routes:

Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface
Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.102
1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.102 192.168.1.102
1
192.168.1.102 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.102 192.168.1.102
1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.1.102 192.168.1.102
1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.102 192.168.1.102
1

#1 route print is:

Active Routes:

Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface
Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.145
1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.145
1
192.168.1.145 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
1
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.145
1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.145
1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.145 0.0.0.0
1

.... which as before are the same except for the last line's interface.



--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Win98 can't access the internet, neighborhood OK.

Updates:

I've removed netbeui as protocol on the affected computer.

I can ping/echo the cablemodem by IP address 192.168.100.1 and I can
ping internet sites [which echo pings] by IP address with the affected
#3.

I don't understand why I can't access the webserver tool on the
cablemodem by IP address http://192.168.100.1 if I can ping it and get a
ping echo -- and I don't understand why I can ping/echo the ipchicken
site by IP, but I can't get http://209.68.27.16

So, now that seems as if the ping goes thru' the wireless & wireless
router & cable modem & internet & echoes back and is handled properly by
the router and wirelessness - but packets don't. Or something.


I misspoke here below:

> When I use winpopup to send messages, #1 alerts me that someone is on
> the network with my name, but I send the messages with the computers'
> names, which works fine both ways, 1>3 & 3>1.

I get that alert from #3, the affected, not #1 the unaffected.

Also, when winpopup gets a message from #3, it thinks its name is my
name, not the computer's name. But I can send to the computer's name
OK.



--
Mike Easter