| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 21368 | 2002-06-24 04:29:00 | ICQ better networking system than win2000! | Chris Wilson (431) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 56889 | 2002-06-25 23:01:00 | we think we found the problems sourse, or should i say Erin found it. C (9:48 AM) : Did you see the latest suggestions on the network woes thread? E (9:48 AM) : yeah and I found something interesting C (9:49 AM) : do tell E (9:51 AM) : in client respond only properties - c control panel - admin tools it says IP security policy general properties. Name: Client(respond only) then in description it says:Communicate normally (unsecured). Use the default response rule to negotiate with servers that request security. Only the requested protocol and port traffic with that server is secured. and then wait for it - guess what the multi million dollar check time is??? C (9:52 AM) : do tell E (9:53 AM) : 180 min - or three hours. And IP security rules - checked is dynamic C (9:54 AM) : woo hoo!!!!!!!!! E (9:54 AM) : and it's (edit) everywhere E (9:55 AM) : secure server require security option has same - description says:For all IP traffic, always require security using Kerberos trust. Do NOT allow unsecured communication with untrusted clients. |
Chris Wilson (431) | ||
| 56890 | 2002-06-25 23:10:00 | So... similar problem to the Win 98 one then? The gateway required security and the client was set up without the security? | Heather P (163) | ||
| 56891 | 2002-06-25 23:20:00 | Brendon, See the other suggestions but also 1 other. Win 2K can use NTFS and can read FAT, Win 98 can only use and read FAT. If your Win 2K machine stores it's data on an NTFS partition then you have a problem! |
Heather P (163) | ||
| 56892 | 2002-06-26 05:36:00 | [Expletives to suit] . I don't like "dynamic" things . They change . Maybe demonic would be a better word . ]:) . I asked about DHCP, because that is a timed service, so I was part right . I like networks with Linux . It doesn't hide settings all over the place where you find them by chance . A "hosts" file (lowercase) in *nix is what there was before there was DHCP (or even DNS servers) . Each computer in a network has a list of IP addresses matched to the names of each computer it talks to . That can be just the computers on the local network, or others in the global network . That's how the early Internet worked . Each host (they started with two, then three, then . . . ) had a list . Once a day if there had been any changes or additions, the administration (at BBN) site sent out a copy of that file to everyone . It would be a very big file these days . The lookup ("resolving") sequence goes to that file first, then to a DNS server . It is quicker . On a small network it is all that is needed . And it means that the system does what it is told . If you tell it wrong, it's wrong . But it is the same every day . It doesn't dynamically allocate new IP addresses, which have a timeout period . MS uses a LMHOSTS file (I think) . I'm sure that you now have a good understanding of what "User-friendly and intuitive" means . ;-) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 56893 | 2002-06-26 08:13:00 | It is indeed a FAT32 hard drive that I have, as I dual boot win98. I will have a look and set up a profile, thanks. BTW, do you know what the win2k equivilant of 98's msconfig is? Ta, Brendon |
nzporscheboy (603) | ||
| 56894 | 2002-06-27 22:37:00 | Graham L, Erin and I are going into tackle the dreaded win2000 (non) network problems in about ½ an hour. If you would be so kind as to give us the benefit of your knowledge about "hostfiles", particularly anything that is not going to be self explanatory, we would be most grateful. As you may be aware it has been almost a month of putting these problems in the WTF dept. The sooner this is sorted, the sooner I can focus on better things, and Erin can get on with making a magazine on her self named computer! |
Chris Wilson (431) | ||
| 56895 | 2002-07-19 04:37:00 | I'd like to thank everyone who helped with this, and offer all what i hope is the final chapter to the story. Its fixed!!!! We can only guess why it wouldn't work, and why it now does. After all the effort, what we did was leave it alone. Its been almost 3 weeks of excepting that the windows sharing was never going to be a happening thing, then windows decided all by itself to prove us wrong. Suddenly the rouge machine was visible, and could see and share all the resources it was supposed to. Its been running fine for a week now, perfectly. The only clue is that another thing that sorted itself out was a printer on the said rouge machine also decided it could be installed after all.... confused? I am! ?:| Once again, thanks to all who offered suggestions and advice. Chris. |
Chris Wilson (431) | ||
| 56896 | 2002-07-19 05:01:00 | Oh dear. "It's fixed". :_| If you don't know what changed to make it work, it is still lurking. Don't ever move the rubber chicken. ]:) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 56897 | 2002-07-19 05:15:00 | Err.... Didn't you discover that it was the configuration settings on the Server machine? That the Client wasn't set to these settings? | Heather P (163) | ||
| 56898 | 2002-07-19 05:23:00 | fingers are crossed toes are crossed, if it fails again, and the printer stuffs up again, first thing to try is to toss the printer... but it's been good so far there's a part of me that doesn't like the uncertanty, cause i want to know why, but i'll just go with it... |
Chris Wilson (431) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||