Search Results

Search found 795 results on 32 pages for 'wire plant'.

Page 24/32 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How to test/debug bad network wiring?

    - by Jack Lloyd
    I recently bought a place already wired with Cat 5E (8 ports, leading to a central closet). However attempting to get link, nothing works. On closer examination, it was obvious that the ends in the closet were wired backwards (brown on pin 1, etc). The jacks that I've pulled out of the wall do look to be correctly done. However, testing with a network cable tester shows zero link between any of the jacks and any of the ports in the closet - I had expected to just see a 1/8, 2/7, ... 8/1 mismatch, but instead get nothing at all. The runs are accessible and look neat, though they take some bends that seem quite sharp and are in some cases much longer than they need to be (the person who put this in was a professional electrician but I suspect this was the first time he ran network cabling). My best guess at this point is that he either bought bad cable, or put so much tension on it that he snapped wires. Though it seems surprising/unlikely that I wouldn't get at least one active wire on one of the 8 lines. So, my question: is there anything else I should try or test before I go ripping out everything and running new cable?

    Read the article

  • Why Wireshark does not recognize this HTTP response?

    - by Alois Mahdal
    I have a trivial CGI script that outputs simple text content. It's written in Perl and using CGI module and it specifies only the most basic headers: print $q->header( -type => 'text/plain', -Content_length => $length, ); print $stuff; There's no apparent issue with functionality, but I'm confused about the fact that Wireshark does not recognize the HTTP response as HTTP--it's marked as TCP. Here is request and response: GET /cgi-bin/memfile/memfile.pl?mbytes=1 HTTP/1.1 Host: 10.6.130.38 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: cs,en-us;q=0.7,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:52:23 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.15 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.15 OpenSSL/0.9.8m Content-length: 1048616 Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 XXXXXXXX... And here is the packet overview (Full packet is here on pastebin) No. Time Source srcp Destination dstp Protocol Info tcp.stream abstime 5 0.112749 10.6.130.38 80 10.6.130.53 48072 TCP [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] 0 20:52:23.228063 Frame 5: 1514 bytes on wire (12112 bits), 1514 bytes captured (12112 bits) Ethernet II, Src: Dell_97:29:ac (00:1e:4f:97:29:ac), Dst: Dell_3b:fe:70 (00:24:e8:3b:fe:70) Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: 10.6.130.38 (10.6.130.38), Dst: 10.6.130.53 (10.6.130.53) Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: http (80), Dst Port: 48072 (48072), Seq: 1, Ack: 330, Len: 1460 Now when I see this in Wireshark: there's usual TCP handshake then the GET request shown as HTTP with preview then the next packet contains the response, but is not marked as an HTTP response--just a generic "[TCP segment of a reassembled PDU]", and is not caught by "http.response" filter. Can somebody explain why Wireshark does not recognize it? Is there something wrong with the response?

    Read the article

  • Virtualizing an Inline network appliance with VirtualBox (or VMWare)

    - by Tzury Bar Yochay
    My device, which is a Linux based IP in-liner is transparent to the network peripherals, that is, no IP address assigned to any of its interfaces. For the sake of the conversation, let's use ADSL connection as an example, while the device is inspecting the bi-directional traffic, the network is behaving same as if device was not there, attached to the wire (see Physical setup at the attached diagram). I wonder if I can enclosed that "device" within a Windows machine and have it operated virtually so it still seats inline between the ADSL router and the Windows netwroking interface by using virtual NICs, (or whatever their name is in windows), and inspecting the traffic, same as if it was on a separate physical device, the drawing under "Virtual Setup" in the attached diagram show what I am trying to achieve. Reading a bit on the VirtualBox docs, seems like binding the right side is relatively simple, perhaps I should have one network adapter set as Bridge Networking and VirtualBox will connect it to the physical NIC on the host machine, and network packets are exchanged directly, circumventing the host operating system's network stack (WinXP in my case). However, I have no idea how to achieve the left side of my diagram, which requires adding virtual NICs to windows and configure them correctly in a way to make that pipeline possible. I would appreciate any help. by the way, if that is not possible with VirtualBox but with other virtualization solution (e.g. VMWare), I would accept the other as well.

    Read the article

  • How to send from my Z88 to my PC

    - by Bevan
    I've got a Cambridge Z88 that I want to get working with my PC. Around 6 years ago - in 2004 - I made heavy use of my Z88 to do a whole bunch of writing on the train while commuting to and from work. The Z88 is solid state, lightweight and has a full size silent keyboard, so it works very well as a writing instrument. I still have the serial cable I soldered up back then and used successfully in 2004. It has these connections: Z88 9 pin ----- ------- 2 TxD ------> RxD 2 3 RxD <------ TxD 3 7 GND <-----> GND 5 4 RTS ------> CTS 8 5 CTS <-+ RTS 7 8 DCD <-+---- DTR 4 9 DTR ----+-> DCD 1 +-> DSR 6 Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find my notes from 2004 that describe how I got it to work back then. I've spent several hours trying to Google a result, but to no avail. I'm pretty sure the cable is fine - after all, it's what I used successfully six years ago, and I've checked it out with a multimeter - so I'm focusing on the PC end of things, which is where I'd like some assistance. Q1: In my recent attempts, I've been using both Hyperterminal (as built into Windows XP) and the command line (copy com2: con:), but with no success. What's a good (better!) serial communications application to use? Is there one that allows me to see as deep as the signalling that's occurring on the wire? Q2: If you have a Z88 that works correctly with your PC, what software do you use on the PC end, and what's the pinout of your cable? I'm pretty sure that the Z88 itself is working properly: When using the built in Import/Export tool to send a file, I see different behaviour when my serial cable is connected compared to disconnected. When disconnected, the transmission appears to work, with a progress meter counting up and then finishing; when connected, nothing happens 'cept a timeout if I wait long enough.

    Read the article

  • Not getting IP from ISP on Multicast Network

    - by Johan Nielsen
    Im having an odd issue with my ISP (COMX.dk) I have a managed access gateway box (Telsay) with three 8P8C ports for use with Internet and Ip-Tv (respectively on different VLANS (so does my ISP tell me)) To utilize a port you will need to register your device's mac address through an online interface. You will then get your device paired with a static ip. I am using one port actively and I have registered another device (router). The router is configured to listen for an active dhcpd on the network. When my router get a lease I get a private ip 192.168.2.2 (not the one bound to my mac) which is odd! I unconnected my router from the gateway and connected my laptop directly. Same thing happened - I was given a private address. I did a port scan on the gateway and found port 80 to be open and browsed to the ip. I was then presented with a management interface of a Belkin wireless router (HMMM!!!!) <--by the way, not my gear At this point I called the ISP to let them know of my issue/findings - Only to be replied "Well, we cant see any rogue dhcp servers" (thinking to myself, well I can) I then decided that it could be fun to try the other port of my gateway, only to experience the same. So I reconnected my router and used the remaining port to make an observer(wireshark promic etc.) I am able to see my router trying to discover a dhcp server but I can also see my ISP's IGMP and PIMv2 packages just repeating the same pattern. Hello...Hello...Hello :) So I called them again, only to get the same response, "we dont see any rogue dhcp's...we cant see the host you are talking to (mac address of the Belkin router)...you are definitively connected through wireless?!?(no im not, no such thing as a wireless wire - i thought to myself)" My questions is, What is going on? (besides from what im reporting here) What am I seeing that the don't? What can I tell them in order for them to resolve mine/their issue?

    Read the article

  • How to configure a large mtu (linux)

    - by Somejan
    I have a gigabit ethernet connection from my laptop to my router, and a working ipv6 connection to the internet. I can receive very large packets from sites on the internet, with sizes up to at least 10000 bytes (according to wireshark). (edit: turns out to be linux's 'generic receive offload') However, when trying to send anything, my local computer fragments at just below 1500 bytes for ipv6. (On ipv4, I can send tcp packets to the internet of at least 1514 bytes, I can ping with packets up to the configured mtu of 6128 but they are blackholed.) I'm on ubuntu 12.04. I have configured an mtu for my eth0 of 6128 (the maximum it accepts), both using ip link set dev eth0 mtu 6128 and in the NetworkManager applet gui, and restarted the connection. ip link show eth0 shows the 6128 mtu is indeed set. ip -6 route shows that none of the paths the kernel knows about have an mtu set. I can ping over ipv4 with packets up to 6128 bytes (though I don't get responses), but when I do ping6 myrouter -c3 -s1500 -Mdo I get error replies from my own computer saying that the packets are too large and the mtu is 1480. I have confirmed with Wireshark that nothing is put on the wire, and the replies are indeed generated by my own computer. So, how do I get my computer to use the larger mtu?

    Read the article

  • Find whether TV supports S Video

    - by Vik
    Hello Freinds I have a TV (some unknown model) which has 3 sockets to insert 3 wires red, yellow and white. A DVD Player can be connected to the TV using sockets and the TV displays that the TV is in AV mode when DVD is running. Now i have a Desktop which has a S Video Port and i have a wire to connect the S Video port from my computer to those red, yellow and white sockets using appropriate pins. Now i have searched all over the remote and it does not switches to S Video Mode, it has only 2 modes of operation i.e. 1 Cable Connection (Third Party DTH Receiver receives channels and i pay subscription) and 2 AV Mode. It does not have S Video Mode or any other mode. Now my question is whether i can connect the S Video cable from my desktop to the above described TV or i should look for a new TV if i wish to connect the S Video from Computer to TV or there is any sort of converter that can help? I did tried connecting the S Video cable from Desktop to TV, but it did'nt worked. TV kept on displaying Blue Screen of AV Mode. Regards

    Read the article

  • Wifi antenna extension with F-connector/RG-6(RG-59) cable?

    - by rjz2000
    In an older house, the wire mesh in walls surrounding the furnace behave like a Faraday cage and block wifi signals. It is also difficult to lay new cable, however there is television cable to multiple locations due to there once having been a roof-installed, television antenna. It would be relatively trivial to install the wifi router at the center distribution point, then have the antenna broadcasting/receiving the signal plugged in at each of the old television outlets. I assume that it would not be too difficult to find an adapter for SMA <- F-type connectors. The cable is actually RG-59 rather than RG-6, but I assume that it still has relatively good RF isolation along its length, which is no more than a couple hundred feet in any direction. Does anyone know a problem with the idea? Will a router get confused if there is /too little/ interference between the two antenna? Is that length of cable (~100ft) too long for the signal a router broadcasts? I have seen that it is also possible to use old ~$30/each FiOS cable modems available on eBay to extend a network over television cable. However, that seems like a less elegant solution, and might interfere with upnp and dlna services I'd like to have work on a single network. Thanks if anyone has answers or suggestions before I try this project!

    Read the article

  • Wifi antenna extension with F-connector/RG-6(RG-59) cable?

    - by rjz2000
    In an older house, the wire mesh in walls surrounding the furnace behave like a Faraday cage and block wifi signals. It is also difficult to lay new cable, however there is television cable to multiple locations due to there once having been a roof-installed, television antenna. It would be relatively trivial to install the wifi router at the center distribution point, then have the antenna broadcasting/receiving the signal plugged in at each of the old television outlets. I assume that it would not be too difficult to find an adapter for SMA <- F-type connectors. The cable is actually RG-59 rather than RG-6, but I assume that it still has relatively good RF isolation along its length, which is no more than a couple hundred feet in any direction. Does anyone know a problem with the idea? Will a router get confused if there is /too little/ interference between the two antenna? Is that length of cable (~100ft) too long for the signal a router broadcasts? I have seen that it is also possible to use old ~$30/each FiOS cable modems available on eBay to extend a network over television cable. However, that seems like a less elegant solution, and might interfere with upnp and dlna services I'd like to have work on a single network. Thanks if anyone has answers or suggestions before I try this project!

    Read the article

  • How to minimize the risk of employees spreading critical information?

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, What's common sense when it comes to minimising the risk of employees spreading critical information to rivalling companies? As of today, it's clear that not even the US government and military can be sure that their data stays safely within their doors. Thereby I understand that my question probably instead should be written as "What is common sense to make it harder for employees to spread business critical information?" If anyone would want to spread information, they will find a way. That's the way life work and always has. If we make the scenario a bit more realistic by narrowing our workforce by assuming we only have regular John Does onboard and not Linux-loving sysadmins , what should be good precautions to at least make it harder for the employees to send business-critical information to the competition? As far as I can tell, there's a few obvious solutions that clearly has both pros and cons: Block services such as Dropbox and similar, preventing anyone to send gigabytes of data through the wire. Ensure that only files below a set size can be sent as email (?) Setup VLANs between departments to make it harder for kleptomaniacs and curious people to snoop around. Plug all removable media units - CD/DVD, Floppy drives and USB Make sure that no configurations to hardware can be made (?) Monitor network traffic for non-linear events (how?) What is realistic to do in a real world? How does big companies handle this? Sure, we can take the former employer to court and sue, but by then the damage has already been caused... Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • what are valid 'ack' values?

    - by WileECanisLatrans
    having an issue with a vendor who claims the cause of a problem is an invalid 'ack' value in the tcp data. I'm using java so I didn't write this layer. I used snoop to capture the traffic on the wire and am using wireshark to display the data. Here is what is happening. After receiving a multi-packet(5) message I see a multi-pack(3) response. The first packet in the response has a value for 'ack' that is different than the 'ack' value in the other two packets. The vendor claims this data is suspect. I've provided sample data below. I'm not a tcp expert so I don't know if this is a problem or not. I've tried to find something on valid ack values and it seems to me the value should be 80018 but that doesn't mean the 78345 is wrong. I found this on the web and it seems to apply but I'm not sure: "the ack value of any data segment is considered valid as long as it does not acknowledge data ahead of the next segment to send". Thanks for your help. My understanding is the vendor has written their own tcp layer. * source seq ack len * vendor 75465 10924 0 * vendor 75465 10924 1440 * vendor 76905 10924 1440 * vendor 78345 10924 1440 * vendor 79785 10924 233 * me 10924 78345 0 * me 10924 80018 0 * me 10924 80018 197

    Read the article

  • RouterLess, house-wired network using multiple powerline adapters

    - by Cliff Arnell
    related to the 'old days' of one ethernet cable tapped with Ts for each monitor.... my question might be very simple... or not. I have an over-the-air internet provider with a wire dish with a powered transceiver and cat5 cable out of the providers supplied modem. I'm presently connecting the output of the modem into my wireless router which sends the internet signal all over the house. Standard stuff, I believe. My Question. Can I just connect the output of the modem into 1 powerline adapter and tie all my equipment such as computer, printer, laptop, Tivo recorder, etc. into 1-each local powerline adapters located near each devices resulting in a 'house-wired' network and no router? I'm bothered by the idea that my over-the-air provider might be using something in my router to establish and keep my IP connection alive. I did have to configure the router for my IP, a router which, in my proposed scenario, would no longer exist. Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • Can't reliably ping 6224 router from directly-attached system

    - by David Mackintosh
    OK, here's my situation. This is on the internet. The 6224 is the router in this picture and physically resides in Kanata. Both VLAN 1697 and 3994 are provided by an internet service provider. These VLANs are provided through a single 1Gb ethernet wire. The Kanata hosts are directly attached to the 6224; the other two sites are remote. VLAN 3994 is a single IP address space, so theoretically it shouldn't matter physically where the hosts on that subnet are. Here's the problem. I have a monitoring system which is connected further into the internet, so probes from the monitor would come in to this diagram on the 1697 VLAN. When I ping hosts at Albert or Bells Corners from the internet, there is 0 loss. The connection looks perfect. When I ping hosts at Kanata, I lose anywhere from 10 to 40% of the pings. The loss is not predictable, but: when I do lose them, I always lose at least 3, usually 4, rarely more, pings in a bunch. I have attached a monitor directly to the 6224 in Kanata on 3994.. When the monitor pings the 6224 routing interface, I see exactly the same loss pattern -- but NOT at the same time as the loss from the remote system. Ping time is around 1ms. When the monitor pings another system directly attached to the 6224, there is 0 loss. Ping time is about 0.1ms, one-tenth of the time to ping the router. Anyone know what is going on here?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu - wireless connection works great but wired is totally dead

    - by Dan
    I am running Ubuntu 10.04 on my Acer Aspire One netbook. The wireless connection works great, but the wired is totally dead. When I plug the Ethernet wire, the little led next to the port doesn't blink. If I do ifconfig, this is the output: lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:1659 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:1659 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:132304 (132.3 KB) TX bytes:132304 (132.3 KB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 18:f4:6a:65:48:1f inet addr:192.168.1.7 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::1af4:6aff:fe65:481f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:94823 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:81390 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:93028474 (93.0 MB) TX bytes:18002558 (18.0 MB) There is no eth0. Is that normal? In the "Network Connections" GUI there is an entry "Wired connection 1", its "MAC address" field is blank. How can I make the wired connection work?

    Read the article

  • Have to run auto-negotiate between clients and switch - "old" switch works fine - "new" switch results in "port flapping"?

    - by ConfusedAboutSwitching
    I need some help understanding a problem we're having at work: We run Altiris/Deployment Solution and have to use auto-negotiate between client systems and our switches (Altiris apparently requires this for imaging, PXE boot and other functions). We have several areas with old wiring (Cat 3 & Cat 5) that have old 10/100 Cisco switches in them - and we can set these systems up to "auto/auto" (auto-negotiate on both the NIC and the switch port), and everything has been working fine. But - our networking crew changed out a couple of old switches for 10/100/1000 Cisco switches, and now - they are claiming that "auto/auto" won't work because the switches can't auto-negotiate the way the old 10/100 switches did - and that if we try to set the new gig switches to auto-negotiate, the switch port starts "port flapping", and shuts the port down. But - if we put the old switch back in - they work using "auto/auto" just fine - no port flapping. The networking crew is telling me that the problem is that we're putting "new switches" on "old wire", and that the old cabling can't/won't support the auto-negotiation with these new switches....??? There's something about this that doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain this to me? Or is our networking crew just doing something wrong in the configuration of these new switches? While will the old switches work "auto/auto", but the new switches won't?? HELP!!....and Thanks!! M

    Read the article

  • Outdoor WiFi Mesh Topology vs. Repeaters

    - by IronJaxor
    Here's the current configuration in our organization (which I believe is incorrect): We have a number of Cisco 1500 series AP's (22 in total), that are mounted outdoors to provide seamless WiFi coverage over a large area. Each AP however has its own physical ethernet connection back to the WLC (All the AP's are marked as Root AP's). They are all broadcasting the same SSID. We have tried to stagger the channel selection but because there are only three non-overlapping channels to choose from, and in some areas the density of AP's is quite high, there is multiple places of channel interference. With this configuration we experience 100-150 disconnects from clients every day. (Our clients are mobile so they move throughout the coverage area constantly). My idea is to switch the AP's to the same channel thereby forming a wireless mesh, use the built in functionality of the 1500 series to use 802.11a as the backhaul, designate one or two AP's as root AP's and wire them back to the WLC. Thereby forming a WiFi mesh, which if I'm not mistaken is the point of the 1500 series in the first place! I am however completely new at WiFi networks and wondering if I am simply mistaken in what I believe my proposed changes will enable, or if there is a better way to tackle the WiFi topology.

    Read the article

  • Running computer from separate room

    - by Dan
    I want my computer to be in the basement, but to use it on the first floor. Which cables should I run through the floor? Can some be wireless or other methods? Here are some of the options I've thought of: Basic: Run DVI, usb (mouse), usb (keyboard), and audio cable (4 cables) USB Hub option: Run DVI, and 1 usb, then using a usb hub split it into mouse, keyboard, maybe even audio (2-3 cables) HDMI Option: If I get a new video card and monitor that supports HDMI, would I be able to run both audio and video through it? Would the monitor have to have an audio out? Also there is a lot of extra bandwidth in the HDMI cables, could I send two monitors on 1 cable or would I have to use 2 cables? How about sending mouse/keyboard through the HDMI cable? I see a lot of monitors with USB hubs built in, but I assume I'd still have to wire HDMI + 1 USB cable to use the USB hubs? X Terminal Machine/Thin Client: I don't really know much about this option. Not sure if it would allow me to run graphics acceleration and watch movies, does anyone know more details about what this would allow me to do? Other options: Any other ways to do this? Can any of this be wireless?

    Read the article

  • Can I configure Thunderbird 3 to refresh the folder list for an Exchange IMAP account?

    - by Howiecamp
    Background: When used as an IMAP client against Gmail, Thunderbird 3 (may be the case in v2 also, not sure) will refresh it's list of folders (the folders correspond to Gmail labels) when you do "Download/Sync Now..." or restart the Thunderbird client. Any new folders (labels) created in Gmail will sync to the client and any folders moved/changed/deleted folders in Gmail will move/change/delete on the client as well. (Note: Thunderbird has the concept of "subscribing" to IMAP folders (assumingly allowing you to determine which folders you want, rather than bringing all of them down and dragging loads of data across the wire). When used against Gmail, Thunderbird appears to automatically subscribe to all folders (including when folders are newly created in Gmail), so this might be why the refresh is happening properly.) This behavior is what I want with Exchange. When using Thunderbird with Exchange (2007), the folder list doesn't refresh when folders are added/changed/deleted on the server and/or from a different mail client. When I look at the subscription options, some are checked and some are not (not sure why Thunderbird picked some and not others). And when I add new folders on the server and/or from another client, they never even appear in Thunderbird's list of folders, preventing me from subscribing to them.

    Read the article

  • Setting up a home network

    - by Mat Richardson
    I'm trying to get my head around how to do this with the equipment I have. Here's how it is.. I have an old laptop that has server 2003 installed on it. This has no wireless NIC, but I have a spare wireless router that I can wire to it. We have a virgin wireless router which provides the home with internet access. What I would like to do it make resources on the server 2003 machine available to the rest of the devices in the home - specifically a couple of laptops running windows 7. Ideally I'd like to be able to use the laptop as a fileserver but maybe also offer application virtualization. In the first instance however, I'd like to create a file server with the laptop and allow connections to it by the other machines. Virtualisation is just a 'nice to have'... Given the hardware I have is this possible? Can you point me in the right direction how to do what I want if this is the case?

    Read the article

  • Wifi antenna extension with F-connector/RG-6(RG-59) cable?

    - by rjz2000
    In an older house, the wire mesh in walls surrounding the furnace behave like a Faraday cage and block wifi signals. It is also difficult to lay new cable, however there is television cable to multiple locations due to there once having been a roof-installed, television antenna. It would be relatively trivial to install the wifi router at the center distribution point, then have the antenna broadcasting/receiving the signal plugged in at each of the old television outlets. I assume that it would not be too difficult to find an adapter for SMA <- F-type connectors. The cable is actually RG-59 rather than RG-6, but I assume that it still has relatively good RF isolation along its length, which is no more than a couple hundred feet in any direction. Does anyone know a problem with the idea? Will a router get confused if there is /too little/ interference between the two antenna? Is that length of cable (~100ft) too long for the signal a router broadcasts? I have seen that it is also possible to use old ~$30/each FiOS cable modems available on eBay to extend a network over television cable. However, that seems like a less elegant solution, and might interfere with upnp and dlna services I'd like to have work on a single network. Thanks if anyone has answers or suggestions before I try this project!

    Read the article

  • Can't Ping - Wireless network of home

    - by Naunidh
    Hello, This may seem like other ping problem, but I have tried a lot before posting it here. I have a linksys WRT54G - firmware v8.00.8. I have two laptops one windows vista (192.168.1.99) and Windows Xp (192.168.1.13) connected on WiFi . The Router's IP address is 192.168.1.4, and default gateway is the ADSL modem (192.168.1.1) connected through wire. The problem is that laptops can not ping each other, they can ping the gateway and the linksys router, and both can access internet. Following has been tried (I am pinging from XP machine to Vista): I saw that arp entires for Vista machines were not being populated, so I added static ARP entries. 192.168.1.99 00-19-7e-70-d0-4e static I checked on ethereal that an ICMP packet for MAC address of Vista machine does go out from XP machine towards the Vista machine, but never reaches the Vista machine. So its get eaten by the Router? I added Vista machine to DMZ in my linksys router, so that all the ports are open (In case it was an issue). Firewalls , antivirus etc were turned off, echo was enabled explicitly on vista, file sharing, network discovery were turned on. Network type was set to private. Unchecked everything in Router;s firewall, even though they are only meant for WAN requests. Is there anything else that I should try. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Two cisco gigabit switches refuse to link to each other. Any idea why?

    - by Prody
    I have 3 Linksys SR2024 switches which are basically non-managed 24 port Gbit + 2 miniGBIC. I now had to add another switch to the network, and my provider didn't have the SR2024 switch anymore, so I got the Cisco SLM2024 which was a bit more expensive. It's pretty much the same thing but with management (that I don't need). So I've connected the SLM2024 to a SR2024 via Cat6 cable, and for some strange reason, I get no link. If I connect any machine with a Gbit NIC to both switches, it links with 1Gbit autonegotiated. If I connect the SLM2024 to a non-Gbit switch (I have a cheap 4port ASUS switch), it will link just fine on 100Mbit full duplex. Since the SLM2024 has management, I've tried to see if something is misconfigured on it's side, but it's not, it advertises 1Gbit and lower. (hence the machines connecting succesfully at 1Gbit). Since the SR2024 that I'm trying to connect it to also connects successfully with another SR2024 and other Gbit machines, it means that it advertises Gbit too. But for some reason when I link the SR2024 to the SLM2024 I get no link. Please note that I've properly tested the wire. Does anyone have any idea what's wrong?

    Read the article

  • Using a second Wifi Router (in order to use a LAN port)

    - by Sledge81
    Problem: Connecting a TV decoder via Internet. It doesn't have inbuilt wifi so wired LAN is the only option. I bought a second Wifi Router so I could use its LAN port to create a wired internet connection to my decoder. What I want to achieve: The second Wifi Router should basically pick up the signal from the main wifi router. I would then use the LAN port to connect (with a wire) to the TV decoder. In other words have my secondary Wifi Router act as an access point, which will enable me to use a wired LAN connection to the decoder. What i've done so far: Connected the second Wifi Router to my laptop via the LAN ports. Access 192.168.1.1 and went into my second router. 1) SSID set to the same one as the main Wifi Router 2) Tried disabling DHCP and enabling DHCP (with the DNS and default gateway configured the same as the main router). When I check my network connections, I see the LAN connection too but it says 'Not connected to the internet' while the Wifi (main router) shows connected. Can someone please advise on how to use my second Wifi Router to connect to the main Wifi Router (and thus the Internet). Thanks. main wifi router: Zyxel secondary wifi router: TP Link

    Read the article

  • Safely transfer files from pc with internet connection to lan without allowing any other form of communication

    - by Hugh Quenneville
    In the company that I work there are computers that are connected to the Internet and computers that are connected to a Local Area Network. The LAN is considered a "safe zone" and the files that reside there should never be copied/moved to a computer that has Internet Access. So, now, if we want to download an installer for an application for example, we download it in a pc that has Internet Access and then move it using a "secure USB stick" to the Local Area Network. Is there a way to create an "safe, one-way connection" between a computer with Internet access and a computer from the LAN? This practically means that only files from the computer with the Internet access can be copied/moved to the LAN. In addition to that, if you want to transfer files you would have to provide your security credentials for the network (so, that only users with the appropriate access levels will be able to transfer files). Is it possible to create something like that and make it completely safe (or at least "equally safe" with the USB method that we currently use) or the fact that the computer with Internet access is connected with a wire to the LAN is a security risk by itself? NOTE: the LAN setup involves 2 Windows 2003 servers with Active Directory, Web servers and pretty much all the services that you would expect to find in a Windows network.

    Read the article

  • How to minimize the risk of employees spreading critical information? [closed]

    - by Industrial
    What's common sense when it comes to minimising the risk of employees spreading critical information to rivalling companies? As of today, it's clear that not even the US government and military can be sure that their data stays safely within their doors. Thereby I understand that my question probably instead should be written as "What is common sense to make it harder for employees to spread business critical information?" If anyone would want to spread information, they will find a way. That's the way life work and always has. If we make the scenario a bit more realistic by narrowing our workforce by assuming we only have regular John Does onboard and not Linux-loving sysadmins , what should be good precautions to at least make it harder for the employees to send business-critical information to the competition? As far as I can tell, there's a few obvious solutions that clearly has both pros and cons: Block services such as Dropbox and similar, preventing anyone to send gigabytes of data through the wire. Ensure that only files below a set size can be sent as email (?) Setup VLANs between departments to make it harder for kleptomaniacs and curious people to snoop around. Plug all removable media units - CD/DVD, Floppy drives and USB Make sure that no configurations to hardware can be made (?) Monitor network traffic for non-linear events (how?) What is realistic to do in a real world? How does big companies handle this? Sure, we can take the former employer to court and sue, but by then the damage has already been caused... Thanks a lot

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >