How do I set up multiple LAN connection in Windows 2000 Pro?

Post #67,449 by CRConrad 12/9/02 8:26:14 AM Reply	How do I set up multiple LAN connection in Windows 2000 Pro? This is one for a bigger Winders Guru than I... Peter? Yoo-hoo, PEEE-TERRR...? I don't get it -- am I doing something wrong, or is one not supposed to be able to set up several different local network connections, each with its own properties, in W2KP?!? I mean, modem connections I can create until they come dripping out of my ears... But LAN connections, I have only two -- and the reason I have even that "many", as I understand it, is only because I happen to have two different "LAN adapters" (one of which isn't really one; it's a "virtual LAN adapter", in reality the IRDA interface to my GPRS-capable Nokia mobile phone). So what am I doing wrong -- what else should I do, than double-click the "Add a new network connection" icon? Or did Microsoft REALLY not think I might want to attach one and the same machine to DIFFERENT networks, where it should behave differently depending on which of them it is attached to? As late as nineteen-ninety-fucking-NINE, or whenever they put the finishing touches on NT 5?!? Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993]
Post #67,457 by pwhysall 12/9/02 9:04:43 AM Reply	Slow down, cowboy. You can do what you want, and your slightly deranged account of events isn't helping me figure out what's going wrong. Calmly and slowly, explain you current configuration of hardware, what you want to do, and what you've done so far. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,470 by CRConrad 12/9/02 9:57:07 AM Reply	What's not to understand??? I want to attach a computer to a Local Area Network. (This works, already.) Then I want to attach the same computer to another Local Area Network. (This works too, after a fashion.) The Local Area Networks are slightly different. (Of course... How could they NOT be?) So the computer should be configured slightly differently for each Local Area Network. (This is what doesn't work, right now... Except by changing each setting manually. (That's what I mean by "after a fashion", above.)) What I want to do is set up these slightly differently-configured Local Area Network connections on the computer, so both alternatives are readily available under the "Network" menu-thingy under the the "Settings" menu-thingy under the Start button. So I won't have to right-click the single Local Area Network connection I have there, click "Properties", select "TCP/IP Protocol", click "Properties"... And so on and so on, each and every time I disconnect the computer from one Local Area Network and connect it to another one, you see? This has, AFAICS, fuck-all to do with "configuration of hardware" since it happens the same way with all machines I've tried it with. Yeah, well, OK, both machines... :-) But still! And nothing to do with what I've "done so far" either, since I haven't been able to do anything. So I mean, really, WTF is there not to understand in my previous post? To recap: I want to set up a SECOND LOCAL Area Network connection (on the same network adapter as the first, pre-existing, one); when I click the "Add a connection" icon thingy, it doesn't let me do that -- it only offers various modem connection alternatives (AFAICR; I'm not on that machine right now). Are you with me so far, or are these menus and icons I'm talking about strangers to you? So my question is, is this how it's supposed to work; an intentional design limitation in Windows 2000 Professional? Or am I approaching the problem the wrong way; is there some totally different icon or menu, in some totally different place, that I should be using in stead? Or, is "something wrong somewhere"; should it actually be possible to set up several slightly differently-configured Local Area Network connections, from exactly these menus and icons I'm talking about here? I just can't see what it is you're not understanding... Couldn't you just answer the questions above, exactly as they are written... PLEASE? Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993]
Post #67,476 by pwhysall 12/9/02 10:08:34 AM Reply	Re: What's not to understand??? I want to attach a computer to a Local Area Network. (This works, already.) Okay. Then I want to attach the same computer to another Local Area Network. (This works too, after a fashion.) Nod. The Local Area Networks are slightly different. (Of course... How could they NOT be?) Indeed. So the computer should be configured slightly differently for each Local Area Network. (This is what doesn't work, right now... Except by changing each setting manually. (That's what I mean by "after a fashion", above.)) Okay, I now start to see what you want. What I want to do is set up these slightly differently-configured Local Area Network connections on the computer, so both alternatives are readily available under the "Network" menu-thingy under the the "Settings" menu-thingy under the Start button. You want to have two sets of network settings for the same network card, I think... So I won't have to right-click the single Local Area Network connection I have there, click "Properties", select "TCP/IP Protocol", click "Properties"... And so on and so on, each and every time I disconnect the computer from one Local Area Network and connect it to another one, you see? ...I think correctly. This has, AFAICS, fuck-all to do with "configuration of hardware" since it happens the same way with all machines I've tried it with. Yeah, well, OK, both machines... :-) But still! It sort of HAS got something to do with hardware. I shall explain shortly. Here's what you need to do. You need to set up a second hardware profile on the box. This is the only way to have two sets of network settings on the same physical card - SHORT OF actually binding two different IP addresses to the same card. Trust me, you don't want to do that. Here's how you create another hardware profile: 1. Start->Settings->Control Panel->System 2. Choose the Hardware tab 3. Click Hardware Profiles 4. Click Copy... 5. Type in a name for the new profile 6. Reboot 7. At the choice screen, choose the new hardware profile 8. Log in as you usually would, and then configure the TCP/IP settings as you want for the other network When you want to revert to the original network settings, reboot and use the original hardware profile. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,483 by boxley 12/9/02 10:18:10 AM Reply	ifconfig eth0:1 works on nix why did you make the statement SHORT OF actually binding two different IP addresses to the same card. Trust me, you don't want to do that why not? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
Post #67,485 by pwhysall 12/9/02 10:20:41 AM Reply	Bad Idea on Windows 2000 Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,520 by boxley 12/9/02 11:19:06 AM Reply	why is binding 2 addresses on one nic bad in 2k? the OS cant handle aliasing? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
Post #67,522 by pwhysall 12/9/02 11:20:28 AM Reply	Thanks - saved me an explanation That's basically it. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,539 by deSitter 12/9/02 11:55:09 AM Reply	Not bad at all - very useful My external NIC is configured with two separate IP addresses. I can run a website on one port of the alternate address and block everything else to that address. I use the primary address for letting the internal network see the outside world. The primary address is invisible to the world - incoming packets are all dropped unless they have an entry in the NAT table, i.e. originated on the inside. -drl
Post #67,495 by CRConrad 12/9/02 10:41:27 AM Reply	Ah, great - will try that. Thanks!!
Post #67,543 by deSitter 12/9/02 12:02:23 PM Reply	Re: What's not to understand??? Here's what you need to do. You need to set up a second hardware profile on the box. This is the only way to have two sets of network settings on the same physical card - SHORT OF actually binding two different IP addresses to the same card. Trust me, you don't want to do that. This is a terrible idea! Even if it works (no intervening switch to drop packets, unlikely on a corporate net) it's a horrible violation of good network administration. As for not using a second IP address on the same interface, there are very good reasons to do that (see below) but they are not related to CRC's problem. -drl
Post #67,608 by pwhysall 12/9/02 3:23:00 PM Reply	Re: What's not to understand??? You need to set up a second hardware profile on the box. This is the only way to have two sets of network settings on the same physical card - SHORT OF actually binding two different IP addresses to the same card. Trust me, you don't want to do that. This is a terrible idea! Even if it works (no intervening switch to drop packets, unlikely on a corporate net) it's a horrible violation of good network administration. Like bollocks it is. And in usual hit'n'run fashion, there's no exposition of why my perfectly working solution to Christian's problem is "terrible". You're getting very good at spouting impressive-sounding but fundamentally broken advice, Ross. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,612 by deSitter 12/9/02 3:34:41 PM Reply	Re: What's not to understand??? ?? You simply don't run logically distinct networks on the same segment! As mentioned below, if the need for that arise (say, you're an ISP doling out IP address ranges on a given subnet) then you manage it with custom netmasks. This is elementary IP networking. -drl
Post #67,623 by pwhysall 12/9/02 4:12:47 PM Reply	You're doing it again! Just saying "I am Ross, hear me roar, this is the way it is" cuts no ice with me. Either explain yourself or SHUT UP. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,557 by folkert 12/9/02 12:53:37 PM Reply	Ahhh, that'd be the best way. Winders Hates "fuzzy" stuff... But it can deal with hardware profiles... being exactly the same, but different config... You can then tailor each profile for localized settings. `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]` Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: [link\|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html\|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive free trip to the (county)Photographer! Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies". Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query: `SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\ WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #67,473 by deSitter 12/9/02 10:01:17 AM 12/9/02 10:02:28 AM Reply	Re: How do I set up multiple LAN connection in Windows 2000 This is an old NT trick which will probably still work, at least in compatibility mode... Leave the default gateway address on the secondary NIC blank. When you specify the default gateway for both cards, Winders gets its routing table in a knot. Be sure to turn on IP forwarding if you want the machines on either net to see those on the other. -drl Edited by deSitter Dec. 9, 2002, 10:02:28 AM EST Expand All History
Post #67,478 by pwhysall 12/9/02 10:10:05 AM Reply	Read the question. There's only one NIC. Your answer won't work as intended - it'll just mean that the second NIC can only talk to nodes on its network segment with the same network number and netmask. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,482 by CRConrad 12/9/02 10:15:05 AM Reply	Thing is, I DON'T want to use the secondary NIC... ...but the PRIMARY one (since that's actually, in reality, the ONLY one). And having "the machines on either net to see those on the other" isn't really an issue, either: I've understood that our office network is so locked-down that I'll only ever get there from outside by dial-up, and those connections (modem ones) I can create an abundance of. I just want to set up the ONE network card to access either one network, or another... To store both the different configurations, but activate just one at a time. Any thoughts on that? Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993]
Post #67,538 by deSitter 12/9/02 11:51:47 AM Reply	Thoughts on That 1) You can have an interface with multiple IP addresses on the same network, provided they all look the same when the netmask is applied. 2) You cannot have the same interface on two physically different networks. Each connection to a separate physical network needs a separate physical interface. See below. 3) The proper solution to your issue is to install a second NIC and attach that to the other network. About 2) - let's say you're on one physical network configured as 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0, but for some perverse reason you set up two computers on this physical network with 192.168.2.0 addresses. Will they talk to each other? Most likely not - the switch will see IP packets with the wrong net address and drop them, if not complain more bitterly to the admin. A properly configured network only passes packets with the correct network address and mask for the segment they live on. If you need to divide a single segment, you use subnet mask ranges - like this: For our imaginary 192.168.1.0 network, we could set up various machines with varying masks 255.255.255.X - for example, to divide it in two: 1st mask 255.255.255.00001111 2nd mask 255.255.255.11110000 This divides the segment into address ranges 192.168.1.1-127 and 192.168.1.128-255. Machines on each logical segment can now happily and independently coexist with a switch having mask 255.255.255.0. -drl
Post #67,586 by jbrabeck 12/9/02 2:12:21 PM Reply	Reading between the lines Think laptop. Connect to one network with one profile. Move to new site, connect to network with another profile. etc... Thanks, Peter. I just picked up a laptop to take with me while working on client sites. (Always can find a drop, but never a computer.) And each client has different network configurations. This way I can create a hw profile for each client, and access their system without a problem. CRC, is this what you are trying to do? Or single computer with access to multiple lans via a single connection? [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com\|Joe]
Post #67,602 by deSitter 12/9/02 3:08:35 PM Reply	Re: Reading between the lines ? DHCP servers assign IP addresses and masks on any reasonable network. -drl
Post #67,607 by pwhysall 12/9/02 3:18:31 PM Reply	Oh hush. Many small networks are staticly assigned. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #67,617 by folkert 12/9/02 3:54:55 PM Reply	Aha! The Great [link\|/forums/render/user?username=pwhysall\|BOFH] among us said: Many small networks are staticly assigned. Some Extremely Large Networks are staticly assigned, also! Ain't that right [link\|/forums/render/user?username=static\|Wade]? (PUN intended!) `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]` Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: [link\|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html\|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive free trip to the (county)Photographer! Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies". Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query: `SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\ WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #67,748 by static 12/10/02 1:57:01 AM Reply	You rang? gfolkert intoned: The Great [link\|/forums/render/user?username=pwhysall\|BOFH] among us said: Many small networks are staticly assigned. Some Extremely Large Networks are staticly assigned, also! Ain't that right [link\|/forums/render/user?username=static\|Wade]? (PUN intended!) I wasn't going to get in the way of CRC's static address situation. He seemed perfectly able of going round in circles without my help. Besides, I wouldn't want to damage anything there... That said, even large networks are likely to have a few statically assigned IP addresses in amongst the seas of DHCPed ones. Servers. Gateways. Certain Clients. If you have a decent IP address management structure for the amount of change it experiences, it is possible for Very Large networks to not use DHCP. I've seen this in action. That said, I use static IPs on my machines at home. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #67,770 by folkert 12/10/02 9:12:45 AM Reply	Yeah... I was really stretching on the "Static" part... but you did confirm my point for me Sir... Danke. Me Personally, I use Static for all of my inplace machines at home... but still have a DHCP server running for those "Throw-ins" fer LAN Parties and such. Dam I gotta Quit getting "New" to me machines... I just got another Pentium-200 (going to be my new FW). Oh well... `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]` Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: [link\|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html\|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive free trip to the (county)Photographer! Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies". Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query: `SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\ WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #68,214 by CRConrad 12/11/02 5:10:08 PM Reply	Yup, that's it exactly. (Wasn't that obvious to everyone?)
Post #67,593 by folkert 12/9/02 2:31:53 PM Reply	Windows does not particularly like Out of Bit order Subnet Masking. It gets confused sometimes. Well, most of the time you run them concurrently. Running a SNM of 255.255.255.240 is just fine Windows won't have a cow on this one. But 255.255.255.16... Yikes it'll screw up the XOR if the same interface has the other active SNM active also. Only time I use OOBSNM is when I am short on available IP Ranges, and I have to get places connected using those. Most of the time I just use a 255.255.255.252 (or 4 address routing network). I rather use a variable length subnet mask than an out of bit order one. Less headache and doesn't go against the CIDR stuff(big, Big, BIG) out there. All int all, OOBSNMs are not a truly supported option in most of the Older Routers and Switches out there. It'll confuse them as well. BE careful where you use it. `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]` Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: [link\|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html\|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive free trip to the (county)Photographer! Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies". Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query: `SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\ WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #67,604 by deSitter 12/9/02 3:10:55 PM Reply	Correct I was just giving illustrative examples. This issue with netmasks is often not well explained. -drl
Post #67,651 by folkert 12/9/02 6:41:37 PM Reply	Might be interested to know... (new thread) Created as new thread #67650 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=67650\|Might be interested to know...] `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]` Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: [link\|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html\|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive free trip to the (county)Photographer! Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies". Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query: `SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\ WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #68,213 by CRConrad 12/11/02 5:07:18 PM 12/11/02 5:08:29 PM Reply	Unfortunately... This issue with netmasks is often not well explained. ...I still couldn't say that it is. (Not that it matters very much, since it seems rather irrelevant to my situation.) Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993] Edited by CRConrad Dec. 11, 2002, 05:08:29 PM EST Expand All History
Post #68,226 by CRConrad 12/11/02 5:32:21 PM Reply	Sorry, but Peter's right - you Just Don't Get It. Ross offers some advice: 1) You can have an interface with multiple IP addresses on the same network, provided they all look the same when the netmask is applied. That's great... I think -- or, probably would think, if I were a network engineer or something such, so I cared deeply about such issues. But what in the world gave you the impression that I do? 2) You cannot have the same interface on two physically different networks. Each connection to a separate physical network needs a separate physical interface. See below. Oh, that must be why all the other consultants are toting around laptops with thirty-eight network cards in them -- one for each LAN they ever attach to! No, hold on, wait a minute... Hey, guess what -- they don't! 3) The proper solution to your issue is to install a second NIC and attach that to the other network. Yeah, right... Maybe if I wanted to attach to several different networks at the same time -- but where did I ever say I wanted to do that? (And are you going to pull a network cable from my home to wherever I go to work each morning, so I can be on my home network while I'm at the office...?) About 2) - let's say you're on one physical network configured as 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0, but for some perverse reason you set up two computers on this physical network with 192.168.2.0 addresses. [...] imaginary 192.168.1.0 network, we could set up various machines with varying masks 255.255.255.X - [...] This divides the segment into address ranges 192.168.1.1-127 and 192.168.1.128-255. [...] En ymmärä tuosta juuri mitään, mutta se ei haita, kun ei oikein koske minun tilannettani. Mahtasitko tietää että tuo kaikki oli minulle yhtä hepreaa? Luultavasti et, kun aina vain oletat olevasi oikeassa, vaikka puhuisit jostain ihan muuta kun kaikki muut keskustelussa osallistuvat. There, that was probably just as enlightening to you as your gobbledygook was to me... Thanks, Ross, but no thanks. Peter's really right: You should actually read the question before you spout off the answer to something else. Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993]
Post #68,244 by folkert 12/11/02 7:38:09 PM Reply	I think... therefore I might just understand... En ymm\ufffdr\ufffd tuosta juuri mit\ufffd\ufffdn, mutta se ei haita, kun ei oikein koske minun tilannettani. Mahtasitko tiet\ufffd\ufffd ett\ufffd tuo kaikki oli minulle yht\ufffd hepreaa? Luultavasti et, kun aina vain oletat olevasi oikeassa, vaikka puhuisit jostain ihan muuta kun kaikki muut keskustelussa osallistuvat. --->Greg Speak - Trying to read Finnish, and trying to paraphrase.<--- Dam those creative solutions to problems, while it's not my inconvenience , it doesn't really concern me "something I believe means 'BABY'". Would you speak to me just as well in Hebrew? Presumably you would/could and while never merely really understanding, although we are debating as to why the Glorious one is actually participating. --->End Translation of Gobbledegook<--- I was introduced to Finnish as a read language in the Marine Corps... never really did anything with it till just now. `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]` Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: [link\|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html\|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive free trip to the (county)Photographer! Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies". Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query: `SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\ WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #68,278 by deSitter 12/11/02 10:04:07 PM Reply	Re: Sorry, but Peter's right - you Just Don't Get It. Oh, that must be why all the other consultants are toting around laptops with thirty-eight network cards in them -- one for each LAN they ever attach to! No, hold on, wait a minute... Hey, guess what -- they don't! I would not do what is being suggested here, and I doubt that any of the consultants you see wandering around do it. Any client with enough infrastructure to need a consultant will have a DHCP server that sets all that stuff up on the fly. It's the very same principle as dialing up to the Internet over the phone lines. You tell the network "I'm here" and it gives you an IP address, a network to live on, and a gateway to the rest of the world. I was at IBM - people had several machines, laptops, labs, etc. Issues like this never arose as people went from room to room to experimental setup to lab to conference etc. It is so easy to configure a DHCP server that any network with more than say 8 nodes should use it. If you ever had a real need to reconfigure your personal network settings from the ground up, then that is the responsibility of the client in any case. -drl
Post #68,292 by boxley 12/11/02 10:50:28 PM Reply	I know of several companies one with over 750 staff and 1k computers have static addressing. It depends on how you want to configure a net. If each port is labelled with an ip address and mask the task is fairly simple. DHCP has its uses in dialup and net on demand but static tables also work quite well. From a secure standpoint I would hesitate to see conslutants dragginf their own boxen in and leaving with the contents daily. Make me nervous that would. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
Post #68,411 by scoenye 12/12/02 2:32:25 PM Reply	Windows won't But at least DOS can hack it... [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=OmxaLwVXBHA.1388%40tkmsftngp05\|netsh]
Post #68,505 by pwhysall 12/12/02 9:44:40 PM Reply	Ackshully netsh made its first appearance with Windows 2000. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #68,513 by deSitter 12/12/02 10:13:30 PM Reply	Fucking Whoopee I can do that on a UNIX machine is 10 seconds. -drl
Post #68,546 by pwhysall 12/12/02 11:38:28 PM Reply	No you can't. A single tool to dump out and change all TCP/IP configuration? Doesn't exist on UNIX. I'd love something like netsh on UNIX; it's in the tradition of VMS tools like SYSGEN. [cue long irrelevant rant about utter superiority of VMS here] Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #68,550 by deSitter 12/12/02 11:48:17 PM Reply	Re: No you can't. 1) Start Yast2 2) Coupla Alt-keys and enters, I'm at my interface. 3) Enter new IP address and mask, gateway, domain name. Done. -drl
Post #68,553 by pwhysall 12/13/02 12:03:00 AM Reply	As usual... ...you're answering the wrong question. Firstly, I tried that: \npeter@polonius:~$ yast2\nbash: yast2: command not found\npeter@polonius:~$ Yast2\nbash: Yast2: command not found\n Oh well. Secondly, you didn't read what was written. A single tool, to dump out all TCP/IP information and configuration. I don't see routing in your answer. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the topic at hand before spouting off any further: [link\|http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;242468\|http://support.micro...d=kb;en-us;242468] That's just an overview, however. Here's another example - managing DHCP servers with netsh.exe. This gives you a flavour of the tool: [link\|http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303351\|http://support.micro...d=kb;en-us;303351] Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #68,636 by deSitter 12/13/02 11:17:43 AM Reply	Re: As usual... Why do I need to worry about routing on a WS? As for DHCP, I use Winroute for that. -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!