A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbandBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » BroadbandBanter forum » Broadband, ADSL & VOIP newsgroups » Cable Modems
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

My machines don't see each other by IP address



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 29th 03, 12:08 AM
David H. Lipman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default My machines don't see each other by IP address

Please explain how you get from your cable modem to an Ethernet switch.

Dave



"Chronolith" wrote in message
...
| I have 5 computers, all connected to each other through a switch. 3 of
| them are set up not to get an IP address automatically, the other 2
| get their IP address from RoadRunner (I'm paying for 2 IP addresses),
| through the cable modem that is also hooked up to the switch.
|
| The two "internet" machines both access the internet without any
| problems. I can copy files from any of the 5 machines to any of the
| others without any problems.
|
| But when I try to ping one of the "internet" machines from the other
| (or the other way around), the ping times out. The same with accessing
| servers running on them. All connections time out. TCPView and the
| firewall never even show that a connection is made. Disabling the
| firewall on both machines does not make any difference.
|
| I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the machines has an IP
| address in the 24.*.*.* range, submask 255.255.255.0, gateway
| 24.92.21.1, while the other has an address in the 65.*.*.* range, with
| different submask (255.255.252.0) and gateway (65.35.160.1).
|
| When trying to ping or get to the servers from outside my LAN, things
| work just fine. But why can't the two machines see each other by IP
| address? Anyone know how to solve this?
|
| Thanks!


Ads
  #2  
Old November 29th 03, 12:55 AM
David H. Lipman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes...

You are doing it wrong.

You have 2 get ISP IPs from RR. (I hope your subscription covers 2 IPs)

3 are LAN addresses.

That's your problem. You are getting 2 WAN addresses from the ISP and somehow setting up
the other 3.
You can't do that. They would be 2 different networks with two different routes.

Assuming that you are subscribed to 2 ISP IP's, you need 2 Cable/DSL Routers each with a 4
port 10/100 E-switch such as the Linksys BEFSR41.

You would then have 2 computers on one Router and 3 computers on the 2cnd Router. However
the nodes of R1 (Router #1) will not see the nodes on R2. If you want all 5 computers to be
on a LAN and access the Internet, then you only need to subscribe to 1 ISP IP and use 1
Router. You can then connect the 8 port E-switch to the Router and have all 5 PCs connected
to either the LAN ports of the Router or to the connected E-switch. This way all 5 will be
on the same LAN.

Dave




"Chronolith" wrote in message
...
| My 5 computers are connected to my 8 port switch through regular patch
| cables (CAT-5 and CAT-6). My switch doesn't have an uplink port, but
| since it will automatically detect what is connected to it, I don't
| need (and am not using) a crossover cable to connect the switch to the
| cable modem. So I have connected my cable modem to (the last port of)
| the switch using a regular patch cable. And, since I can access the
| internet from both my "internet" machines, and since they both get
| there own IP address that way, it seems to me that there is nothing
| wrong with that part.
|
| Does that answer your question?
|
| Thanks!
|
|
| On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:08:31 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| wrote:
|
| Please explain how you get from your cable modem to an Ethernet switch.
|
| Dave
|
|
|
| "Chronolith" wrote in message
| .. .
| | I have 5 computers, all connected to each other through a switch. 3 of
| | them are set up not to get an IP address automatically, the other 2
| | get their IP address from RoadRunner (I'm paying for 2 IP addresses),
| | through the cable modem that is also hooked up to the switch.
| |
| | The two "internet" machines both access the internet without any
| | problems. I can copy files from any of the 5 machines to any of the
| | others without any problems.
| |
| | But when I try to ping one of the "internet" machines from the other
| | (or the other way around), the ping times out. The same with accessing
| | servers running on them. All connections time out. TCPView and the
| | firewall never even show that a connection is made. Disabling the
| | firewall on both machines does not make any difference.
| |
| | I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the machines has an IP
| | address in the 24.*.*.* range, submask 255.255.255.0, gateway
| | 24.92.21.1, while the other has an address in the 65.*.*.* range, with
| | different submask (255.255.252.0) and gateway (65.35.160.1).
| |
| | When trying to ping or get to the servers from outside my LAN, things
| | work just fine. But why can't the two machines see each other by IP
| | address? Anyone know how to solve this?
| |
| | Thanks!
|
|


  #3  
Old November 29th 03, 01:40 AM
David H. Lipman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you have two nodes on 65.x.y.z and three nodes on 10.x.y.z you are using up a lot of
resources for nothing.

Yes all computers will see each other as a LAN for MS Networking when bound to NetBEUI.
However, the protocol of the Internet is TCP/IP and you can't communicate between 10.x.y.z
and 65.x.y.z without a Router.

Then also you have two protocols loaded,TCP/IP for the Internet (NetBIOS over IP should not
be enabled) and NetBEUI for LAN. There is much overhead in doing this including an
increased amount of traffic on the LAN. However, since you have an E-Switch you effectively
have 8 collision domains so that traffic isn't too much of a hassle. Except the extra load
on each PC to have two protocols enabled.

The *BEST* way to do this is use a Router such as the Linksys BEFSR41 and have all 5 nodes
connected to the LAN side. The ONLY protocol that is needed is TCP/IP. All computers will
access the Internet via TCP/IP and all 5 PCs will work in MS Networking using NetBIOS over
IP.

Your method (hub or E-switch) is convoluted and incorrect.

Dave



"Chronolith" wrote in message
...
| Thanks for your reply... but I still don't see how I'm doing it wrong.
| Originally, I had the exact same setup, but I was using a hub instead
| of a switch. The hub had an uplink port. Both my "internet" machines
| got their IP address from RR (both in the 65.*.*.* range), and the
| other 3 machines were hardcoded to have IP addresses in the 10.*.*.*
| range. All machines could see each other through NetBEUI. And the two
| "internet" machines could see each other both through NetBEUI and
| through the IP addresses obtained from RR. Those two machines do not
| have "local" IP addresses. No IP addresses that are local to my LAN.
|
| My hub blew up on me. At first, one port went bad, and slowly, but
| surely, the hub just started breaking down on me; for some reason, I
| haven't had much luck with hubs... blown up 4 in 4 years (LinkSys and
| 3Com, so not no-name brands either). So I just replaced that last hub
| by a switch. For many years, things worked fine with the hubs... the
| two internet machines could ping each other by (RR assigned) IP
| address, could FTP to each other by (RR assigned) IP address, and so
| on. Why not now? The only differences are that I'm using a switch
| instead of a hub now and that the IP addresses, submasks, and gateways
| are different now.
|
| Yes, I am paying for two IP addresses, and, like I said, both machines
| can access the internet perfectly. Yes, I know that if I used a router
| instead of a switch, I could cancel one of my IP addresses and have
| all 5 machines be able to access the internet. The reason I never did
| that before is that there were some things I wasn't too sure about I
| could do if I used a router instead. And I didn't want to risk
| breaking something that worked perfectly.
|
| Like I said, it worked perfectly with my previous hubs. Why not now
| with my newly bought switch? The only differences are (1) the switch
| (without uplink port) instead of a hub (with uplink port) and (2) the
| different range of IP addresses, different submask, and different
| gateway.
|
| So, to clarify once more... I used to have an 8 port hub with an
| uplink port. Using all patch cables, the 5 computers (3 of which had
| my own hardcoded 10.*.*.* IP addresses) were connected to the hub, and
| the cable modem was connected to the uplink port of the hub. Both
| "internet" machines that got their IP through DHCP could access the
| internet, and either of those two machines could access the other by
| that RR DHCP assigned IP address. Now the hub has gone bad, I replaced
| it with a switch. Both machines still can access the internet, don't
| have a local LAN IP address, but they can't see each other anymore
| through their RR DHCP assigned IP addresses. I can't ping one machine
| from the other. But when I try pinging that same IP address from a
| machine outside my LAN, it works just fine.
|
| Why did it work fine before and not now?
|
|
| On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:55:40 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| wrote:
|
| Yes...
|
| You are doing it wrong.
|
| You have 2 get ISP IPs from RR. (I hope your subscription covers 2 IPs)
|
| 3 are LAN addresses.
|
| That's your problem. You are getting 2 WAN addresses from the ISP and somehow setting up
| the other 3.
| You can't do that. They would be 2 different networks with two different routes.
|
| Assuming that you are subscribed to 2 ISP IP's, you need 2 Cable/DSL Routers each with a
4
| port 10/100 E-switch such as the Linksys BEFSR41.
|
| You would then have 2 computers on one Router and 3 computers on the 2cnd Router.
However
| the nodes of R1 (Router #1) will not see the nodes on R2. If you want all 5 computers to
be
| on a LAN and access the Internet, then you only need to subscribe to 1 ISP IP and use 1
| Router. You can then connect the 8 port E-switch to the Router and have all 5 PCs
connected
| to either the LAN ports of the Router or to the connected E-switch. This way all 5 will
be
| on the same LAN.
|
| Dave
|
|
|
|
| "Chronolith" wrote in message
| .. .
| | My 5 computers are connected to my 8 port switch through regular patch
| | cables (CAT-5 and CAT-6). My switch doesn't have an uplink port, but
| | since it will automatically detect what is connected to it, I don't
| | need (and am not using) a crossover cable to connect the switch to the
| | cable modem. So I have connected my cable modem to (the last port of)
| | the switch using a regular patch cable. And, since I can access the
| | internet from both my "internet" machines, and since they both get
| | there own IP address that way, it seems to me that there is nothing
| | wrong with that part.
| |
| | Does that answer your question?
| |
| | Thanks!
| |
| |
| | On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:08:31 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| | wrote:
| |
| | Please explain how you get from your cable modem to an Ethernet switch.
| |
| | Dave
| |
| |
| |
| | "Chronolith" wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | I have 5 computers, all connected to each other through a switch. 3 of
| | | them are set up not to get an IP address automatically, the other 2
| | | get their IP address from RoadRunner (I'm paying for 2 IP addresses),
| | | through the cable modem that is also hooked up to the switch.
| | |
| | | The two "internet" machines both access the internet without any
| | | problems. I can copy files from any of the 5 machines to any of the
| | | others without any problems.
| | |
| | | But when I try to ping one of the "internet" machines from the other
| | | (or the other way around), the ping times out. The same with accessing
| | | servers running on them. All connections time out. TCPView and the
| | | firewall never even show that a connection is made. Disabling the
| | | firewall on both machines does not make any difference.
| | |
| | | I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the machines has an IP
| | | address in the 24.*.*.* range, submask 255.255.255.0, gateway
| | | 24.92.21.1, while the other has an address in the 65.*.*.* range, with
| | | different submask (255.255.252.0) and gateway (65.35.160.1).
| | |
| | | When trying to ping or get to the servers from outside my LAN, things
| | | work just fine. But why can't the two machines see each other by IP
| | | address? Anyone know how to solve this?
| | |
| | | Thanks!
| |
| |
|
|


  #4  
Old November 29th 03, 02:23 AM
David H. Lipman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The best thing you could do is forget about what was and concentrate on the statements I
have made. Using a DSL/Cable Router will make life easier and better for two reasons. the
first reason is due to the DHCP server in the Router will make addressing a snap for the 5
platforms. The second reason is the Router will act as a simplistic FireWall and help
protect your LAN from hackers and Internet worms. your present method is leaving you open
to these attacks.

Dave



"Chronolith" wrote in message
...
| OK... so am I correct in interpreting this as the reason it worked
| before (with my now-deceased hub) was that both internet machines had
| an IP address in the 65.*.*.* range and that if I could get them to
| both have a 65.*.*.* address again (instead of one 65.*.*.* address
| and one 24.*.*.* address), it will work again?
|
| I understand and appreciate that you tell me it's convoluted. And I
| could actually save money by paying for just one IP address and then
| end up having 5 computers with internet access (through a router)
| instead of just 2 (through a switch or hub). But I still want to know
| why it doesn't work anymore now while it worked just fine a few days
| before with my hub. And I even admit that some of the things I wasn't
| too sure about before whether I could do them with a router have
| changed now and I don't even care about those anymore. But I want to
| UNDERSTAND first why it doesn't work now before I try something else.
|
| Thanks very much for all your replies.
|
|
| On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:40:58 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| wrote:
|
| If you have two nodes on 65.x.y.z and three nodes on 10.x.y.z you are using up a lot of
| resources for nothing.
|
| Yes all computers will see each other as a LAN for MS Networking when bound to NetBEUI.
| However, the protocol of the Internet is TCP/IP and you can't communicate between
10.x.y.z
| and 65.x.y.z without a Router.
|
| Then also you have two protocols loaded,TCP/IP for the Internet (NetBIOS over IP should
not
| be enabled) and NetBEUI for LAN. There is much overhead in doing this including an
| increased amount of traffic on the LAN. However, since you have an E-Switch you
effectively
| have 8 collision domains so that traffic isn't too much of a hassle. Except the extra
load
| on each PC to have two protocols enabled.
|
| The *BEST* way to do this is use a Router such as the Linksys BEFSR41 and have all 5
nodes
| connected to the LAN side. The ONLY protocol that is needed is TCP/IP. All computers
will
| access the Internet via TCP/IP and all 5 PCs will work in MS Networking using NetBIOS
over
| IP.
|
| Your method (hub or E-switch) is convoluted and incorrect.
|
| Dave
|
|
|
| "Chronolith" wrote in message
| .. .
| | Thanks for your reply... but I still don't see how I'm doing it wrong.
| | Originally, I had the exact same setup, but I was using a hub instead
| | of a switch. The hub had an uplink port. Both my "internet" machines
| | got their IP address from RR (both in the 65.*.*.* range), and the
| | other 3 machines were hardcoded to have IP addresses in the 10.*.*.*
| | range. All machines could see each other through NetBEUI. And the two
| | "internet" machines could see each other both through NetBEUI and
| | through the IP addresses obtained from RR. Those two machines do not
| | have "local" IP addresses. No IP addresses that are local to my LAN.
| |
| | My hub blew up on me. At first, one port went bad, and slowly, but
| | surely, the hub just started breaking down on me; for some reason, I
| | haven't had much luck with hubs... blown up 4 in 4 years (LinkSys and
| | 3Com, so not no-name brands either). So I just replaced that last hub
| | by a switch. For many years, things worked fine with the hubs... the
| | two internet machines could ping each other by (RR assigned) IP
| | address, could FTP to each other by (RR assigned) IP address, and so
| | on. Why not now? The only differences are that I'm using a switch
| | instead of a hub now and that the IP addresses, submasks, and gateways
| | are different now.
| |
| | Yes, I am paying for two IP addresses, and, like I said, both machines
| | can access the internet perfectly. Yes, I know that if I used a router
| | instead of a switch, I could cancel one of my IP addresses and have
| | all 5 machines be able to access the internet. The reason I never did
| | that before is that there were some things I wasn't too sure about I
| | could do if I used a router instead. And I didn't want to risk
| | breaking something that worked perfectly.
| |
| | Like I said, it worked perfectly with my previous hubs. Why not now
| | with my newly bought switch? The only differences are (1) the switch
| | (without uplink port) instead of a hub (with uplink port) and (2) the
| | different range of IP addresses, different submask, and different
| | gateway.
| |
| | So, to clarify once more... I used to have an 8 port hub with an
| | uplink port. Using all patch cables, the 5 computers (3 of which had
| | my own hardcoded 10.*.*.* IP addresses) were connected to the hub, and
| | the cable modem was connected to the uplink port of the hub. Both
| | "internet" machines that got their IP through DHCP could access the
| | internet, and either of those two machines could access the other by
| | that RR DHCP assigned IP address. Now the hub has gone bad, I replaced
| | it with a switch. Both machines still can access the internet, don't
| | have a local LAN IP address, but they can't see each other anymore
| | through their RR DHCP assigned IP addresses. I can't ping one machine
| | from the other. But when I try pinging that same IP address from a
| | machine outside my LAN, it works just fine.
| |
| | Why did it work fine before and not now?
| |
| |
| | On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:55:40 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| | wrote:
| |
| | Yes...
| |
| | You are doing it wrong.
| |
| | You have 2 get ISP IPs from RR. (I hope your subscription covers 2 IPs)
| |
| | 3 are LAN addresses.
| |
| | That's your problem. You are getting 2 WAN addresses from the ISP and somehow setting
up
| | the other 3.
| | You can't do that. They would be 2 different networks with two different routes.
| |
| | Assuming that you are subscribed to 2 ISP IP's, you need 2 Cable/DSL Routers each with
a
| 4
| | port 10/100 E-switch such as the Linksys BEFSR41.
| |
| | You would then have 2 computers on one Router and 3 computers on the 2cnd Router.
| However
| | the nodes of R1 (Router #1) will not see the nodes on R2. If you want all 5 computers
to
| be
| | on a LAN and access the Internet, then you only need to subscribe to 1 ISP IP and use
1
| | Router. You can then connect the 8 port E-switch to the Router and have all 5 PCs
| connected
| | to either the LAN ports of the Router or to the connected E-switch. This way all 5
will
| be
| | on the same LAN.
| |
| | Dave
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | "Chronolith" wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | My 5 computers are connected to my 8 port switch through regular patch
| | | cables (CAT-5 and CAT-6). My switch doesn't have an uplink port, but
| | | since it will automatically detect what is connected to it, I don't
| | | need (and am not using) a crossover cable to connect the switch to the
| | | cable modem. So I have connected my cable modem to (the last port of)
| | | the switch using a regular patch cable. And, since I can access the
| | | internet from both my "internet" machines, and since they both get
| | | there own IP address that way, it seems to me that there is nothing
| | | wrong with that part.
| | |
| | | Does that answer your question?
| | |
| | | Thanks!
| | |
| | |
| | | On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:08:31 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | | Please explain how you get from your cable modem to an Ethernet switch.
| | |
| | | Dave
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | "Chronolith" wrote in message
| | | .. .
| | | | I have 5 computers, all connected to each other through a switch. 3 of
| | | | them are set up not to get an IP address automatically, the other 2
| | | | get their IP address from RoadRunner (I'm paying for 2 IP addresses),
| | | | through the cable modem that is also hooked up to the switch.
| | | |
| | | | The two "internet" machines both access the internet without any
| | | | problems. I can copy files from any of the 5 machines to any of the
| | | | others without any problems.
| | | |
| | | | But when I try to ping one of the "internet" machines from the other
| | | | (or the other way around), the ping times out. The same with accessing
| | | | servers running on them. All connections time out. TCPView and the
| | | | firewall never even show that a connection is made. Disabling the
| | | | firewall on both machines does not make any difference.
| | | |
| | | | I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the machines has an IP
| | | | address in the 24.*.*.* range, submask 255.255.255.0, gateway
| | | | 24.92.21.1, while the other has an address in the 65.*.*.* range, with
| | | | different submask (255.255.252.0) and gateway (65.35.160.1).
| | | |
| | | | When trying to ping or get to the servers from outside my LAN, things
| | | | work just fine. But why can't the two machines see each other by IP
| | | | address? Anyone know how to solve this?
| | | |
| | | | Thanks!
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|


  #5  
Old November 29th 03, 09:19 AM
Richard Vabulas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You asked WHY your network is not working. A Simple explanation:
An IP based local area network is formed when you have an IP address,
subnet mask and a gateway. The IP address is the unique identifier for
a given machine, the subnet mask identifies how large the network is
and the gateway identifies what address the network will look to if a
node is not in the current network.

You said you originally had 2 machines in the same network (your
Internet Machines) when you had hubs. Hubs work like party lines in
old telephone use- every packet of information is sent to every other
machine connected with the hub. You could talk and ping between them
because traffic between the machines was shared.
Switches are "smart" devices. They transfer data intelligently
between their ports. Switches are "direct connection devices" When you
transfer data with a switch it connects your traffic directly to the
destination MAC address. That is why you can, using a switch have 2
computers on your network each transferring data at the same time as
another pair with no collisions. When you connect to the switch the
switch identifies the MAC address of every device connected to it.
They keep connection data in a small RAM area called an ARP table
(address resolution protocol). When you use a switch, it breaks down
your packets into their MAC addresses and uses them for routing
information. Since your switch "knows" the MAC address of your gateway
and the address of your machine, when you send a packet to your other
"internet" machine it no longer goes it directly. The route it is
taking is: NIC to Switch to Gateway to ISP Router and if it is
working back to gateway to switch to 2nd Internet machine. Since the
two internet machines are on different networks and are separated, not
joined, by your switch, that is why they are not working. There is no
name associated at your ISP with your IP address to help resolution.

You can run NETBEUI at the same time as IP, but it has no ability to
Route information, it works on a different OSI layer. The problem is
that when you do that you have network security problems blasting your
NetBIOS addresses to anyone who cares to ask. Not a good thing for
security.




On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:57:17 GMT, Chronolith
wrote:

OK... so am I correct in interpreting this as the reason it worked
before (with my now-deceased hub) was that both internet machines had
an IP address in the 65.*.*.* range and that if I could get them to
both have a 65.*.*.* address again (instead of one 65.*.*.* address
and one 24.*.*.* address), it will work again?

I understand and appreciate that you tell me it's convoluted. And I
could actually save money by paying for just one IP address and then
end up having 5 computers with internet access (through a router)
instead of just 2 (through a switch or hub). But I still want to know
why it doesn't work anymore now while it worked just fine a few days
before with my hub. And I even admit that some of the things I wasn't
too sure about before whether I could do them with a router have
changed now and I don't even care about those anymore. But I want to
UNDERSTAND first why it doesn't work now before I try something else.

Thanks very much for all your replies.


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:40:58 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
wrote:

If you have two nodes on 65.x.y.z and three nodes on 10.x.y.z you are using up a lot of
resources for nothing.

Yes all computers will see each other as a LAN for MS Networking when bound to NetBEUI.
However, the protocol of the Internet is TCP/IP and you can't communicate between 10.x.y.z
and 65.x.y.z without a Router.

Then also you have two protocols loaded,TCP/IP for the Internet (NetBIOS over IP should not
be enabled) and NetBEUI for LAN. There is much overhead in doing this including an
increased amount of traffic on the LAN. However, since you have an E-Switch you effectively
have 8 collision domains so that traffic isn't too much of a hassle. Except the extra load
on each PC to have two protocols enabled.

The *BEST* way to do this is use a Router such as the Linksys BEFSR41 and have all 5 nodes
connected to the LAN side. The ONLY protocol that is needed is TCP/IP. All computers will
access the Internet via TCP/IP and all 5 PCs will work in MS Networking using NetBIOS over
IP.

Your method (hub or E-switch) is convoluted and incorrect.

Dave



"Chronolith" wrote in message
. ..
| Thanks for your reply... but I still don't see how I'm doing it wrong.
| Originally, I had the exact same setup, but I was using a hub instead
| of a switch. The hub had an uplink port. Both my "internet" machines
| got their IP address from RR (both in the 65.*.*.* range), and the
| other 3 machines were hardcoded to have IP addresses in the 10.*.*.*
| range. All machines could see each other through NetBEUI. And the two
| "internet" machines could see each other both through NetBEUI and
| through the IP addresses obtained from RR. Those two machines do not
| have "local" IP addresses. No IP addresses that are local to my LAN.
|
| My hub blew up on me. At first, one port went bad, and slowly, but
| surely, the hub just started breaking down on me; for some reason, I
| haven't had much luck with hubs... blown up 4 in 4 years (LinkSys and
| 3Com, so not no-name brands either). So I just replaced that last hub
| by a switch. For many years, things worked fine with the hubs... the
| two internet machines could ping each other by (RR assigned) IP
| address, could FTP to each other by (RR assigned) IP address, and so
| on. Why not now? The only differences are that I'm using a switch
| instead of a hub now and that the IP addresses, submasks, and gateways
| are different now.
|
| Yes, I am paying for two IP addresses, and, like I said, both machines
| can access the internet perfectly. Yes, I know that if I used a router
| instead of a switch, I could cancel one of my IP addresses and have
| all 5 machines be able to access the internet. The reason I never did
| that before is that there were some things I wasn't too sure about I
| could do if I used a router instead. And I didn't want to risk
| breaking something that worked perfectly.
|
| Like I said, it worked perfectly with my previous hubs. Why not now
| with my newly bought switch? The only differences are (1) the switch
| (without uplink port) instead of a hub (with uplink port) and (2) the
| different range of IP addresses, different submask, and different
| gateway.
|
| So, to clarify once more... I used to have an 8 port hub with an
| uplink port. Using all patch cables, the 5 computers (3 of which had
| my own hardcoded 10.*.*.* IP addresses) were connected to the hub, and
| the cable modem was connected to the uplink port of the hub. Both
| "internet" machines that got their IP through DHCP could access the
| internet, and either of those two machines could access the other by
| that RR DHCP assigned IP address. Now the hub has gone bad, I replaced
| it with a switch. Both machines still can access the internet, don't
| have a local LAN IP address, but they can't see each other anymore
| through their RR DHCP assigned IP addresses. I can't ping one machine
| from the other. But when I try pinging that same IP address from a
| machine outside my LAN, it works just fine.
|
| Why did it work fine before and not now?
|
|
| On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:55:40 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| wrote:
|
| Yes...
|
| You are doing it wrong.
|
| You have 2 get ISP IPs from RR. (I hope your subscription covers 2 IPs)
|
| 3 are LAN addresses.
|
| That's your problem. You are getting 2 WAN addresses from the ISP and somehow setting up
| the other 3.
| You can't do that. They would be 2 different networks with two different routes.
|
| Assuming that you are subscribed to 2 ISP IP's, you need 2 Cable/DSL Routers each with a
4
| port 10/100 E-switch such as the Linksys BEFSR41.
|
| You would then have 2 computers on one Router and 3 computers on the 2cnd Router.
However
| the nodes of R1 (Router #1) will not see the nodes on R2. If you want all 5 computers to
be
| on a LAN and access the Internet, then you only need to subscribe to 1 ISP IP and use 1
| Router. You can then connect the 8 port E-switch to the Router and have all 5 PCs
connected
| to either the LAN ports of the Router or to the connected E-switch. This way all 5 will
be
| on the same LAN.
|
| Dave
|
|
|
|
| "Chronolith" wrote in message
| .. .
| | My 5 computers are connected to my 8 port switch through regular patch
| | cables (CAT-5 and CAT-6). My switch doesn't have an uplink port, but
| | since it will automatically detect what is connected to it, I don't
| | need (and am not using) a crossover cable to connect the switch to the
| | cable modem. So I have connected my cable modem to (the last port of)
| | the switch using a regular patch cable. And, since I can access the
| | internet from both my "internet" machines, and since they both get
| | there own IP address that way, it seems to me that there is nothing
| | wrong with that part.
| |
| | Does that answer your question?
| |
| | Thanks!
| |
| |
| | On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:08:31 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| | wrote:
| |
| | Please explain how you get from your cable modem to an Ethernet switch.
| |
| | Dave
| |
| |
| |
| | "Chronolith" wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | I have 5 computers, all connected to each other through a switch. 3 of
| | | them are set up not to get an IP address automatically, the other 2
| | | get their IP address from RoadRunner (I'm paying for 2 IP addresses),
| | | through the cable modem that is also hooked up to the switch.
| | |
| | | The two "internet" machines both access the internet without any
| | | problems. I can copy files from any of the 5 machines to any of the
| | | others without any problems.
| | |
| | | But when I try to ping one of the "internet" machines from the other
| | | (or the other way around), the ping times out. The same with accessing
| | | servers running on them. All connections time out. TCPView and the
| | | firewall never even show that a connection is made. Disabling the
| | | firewall on both machines does not make any difference.
| | |
| | | I don't know if it's relevant, but one of the machines has an IP
| | | address in the 24.*.*.* range, submask 255.255.255.0, gateway
| | | 24.92.21.1, while the other has an address in the 65.*.*.* range, with
| | | different submask (255.255.252.0) and gateway (65.35.160.1).
| | |
| | | When trying to ping or get to the servers from outside my LAN, things
| | | work just fine. But why can't the two machines see each other by IP
| | | address? Anyone know how to solve this?
| | |
| | | Thanks!
| |
| |
|
|


  #6  
Old December 2nd 03, 02:20 AM
Exray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Mr Vabulas,

Thank you for your reply in this thread. It was a cogent response to the
original poster's question, and was very informative. If only other usenet
posters could or would do so well.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any IP Experts ?? I have some tricky traceroute Questions gn107001 Cable Modems 7 October 15th 03 12:14 AM
Optimum IP address Lease times arnb Cable Modems 4 October 11th 03 12:46 AM
My ip address did not change redhat_devel Cable Modems 0 July 31st 03 12:20 PM
MAC address didn't change news Cable Modems 8 July 31st 03 11:47 AM
Comcast Giganew Signup Problem Bill Smith Cable Modems 2 July 9th 03 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 BroadbandBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.