Win 7 network problem

[Bozo]

For the last two days, two of us at work have been trying to find out why a Windows 7 computer cannot see any other computer on the network.
Our network is a basic workgroup with static addresses. We use a Linux computer for a Master Browser. The Master Browser service is disabled in most of the Windows computers to prevent conflicts.
After a fresh install of Window 7 Pro 32 bit, I assign an address to the NIC. I make sure network discovery is turned on. I reboot the computer, then double click on 'Network' icon. The screen opens, the progress bar moves about half way across the window then jumps to the end. There are no computers showing in the window. (there should be about 40 computers showing). It doesn't even see itself. If I open the 'Network and Sharing' window and click on 'See full map', after a couple of minutes a network map shows up with 10-12 of the network computers showing along with a few switches. I can also search for computers using the IP address and they come right up.
I have reinstalled the operating system on the afflicted computer three times. I have changed the NIC twice. I have tried every hack, trick, and voodoo spell I have found on the net.
Two other Windows 7 computers attached to the same switch don't have this problem.
Any ideas???

 

[Bozo]

I just realized that I posted this in the wrong place. Sorry

 

[timwhit]

Moved to the right location.

 

[MaxBurn]

I get the same thing when just trying to find my home server. I just use a shortcut straight to the server name. Discovery does work but it takes like a minute to find it and my other shared network devices.

 

[BingBangBop]

have your tried installing a WINS server (on the Linux master browser machine perhaps) and then have all the local machines connect to that?

 

[blakerwry]

The two most common problems I see in Windows networking are naming and addressing.
1) Naming: For discovery to work as expected, all computers should be on the same workgroup
2) Addressing: Microsoft, in an attempt to prevent the spread of viruses, added additional checks to prevent communication outside of one's subnet w/ regard to windows file sharing. For all PCs to see and communicate with each other they should all be on the same /24 subnet.

In Win7, I've also found that the Work network profile seems the most lenient, followed by the Home profile. Obviously, the public profile will not be amenable to file sharing.

These sound like bases you've likely covered, but they're worth repeating because they seem to repeatedly be the cause of windows sharing problems.

 

[ddrueding]

Blake, can you expand on the /24 networking restriction you mentioned above? I need to expand beyond that soon.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you just talking about supernetting to a larger LAN, ddrueding?

I'm not sure how Windows behaves in the context of stapling a couple /24s into a /23, though I suppose most of the historical arguments against letting an ethernet network get that big are invalidated by ubiquitous switching.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm just talking about changing the subnet mask on everything to 255.255.0.0 and assigning stuff to the Class-B instead. It's just 192.168.x.x, so I don't see it being a problem in theory.

 

[Mercutio]

Technically the whole /16 of 192.168 is open to private assignment so I wouldn't think it would be an issue.

 

[ddrueding]

For the record, in testing, older iPhones/iPad touches can't deal with a DHCP subnet mask other than 255.255.255.0. They set themselves to that regardless of DHCP server setting.

 

[ddrueding]

Looks like Android 1.5 and older has the same issue.

 

[Chewy509]

For the record, in testing, older iPhones/iPad touches can't deal with a DHCP subnet mask other than 255.255.255.0. They set themselves to that regardless of DHCP server setting.

What sort of BS is that!!!!

 

[mubs]

Jobs doesn't believe in IPv6. He's planning to come out with Apple's own version, iPee v293

 

[ddrueding]

For the record, Android has a neat app that allows you to override DHCP settings on an AP-specific basis with static profiles, and that does support other subnet masks. I don't know if the newer 2.2 version of Android supports this stuff on it's own, as my phone sucks.

 

[Chewy509]

Sure, while there are workarounds, I don't believe there is any excuse for not being RFC compliant in regards with basic IPv4 network configuration especially from a tier 1 provider and in a premier product.

Mind you, don't get me started on my Samsung mobile phone and it's wonderful quirks. :cursin:

 

[Bozo]

Another quirk: Win 7 Pro x64 works fine on our network with static addresses.
Win 7 Pro 32bit doesn't. For some reason we have not had success in getting it to 'see' other computers on the network.

:dunno:

 

[MaxBurn]

That's interesting, I am using static addresses. The workgroups are the same and using the home network profile in 7. Exploring the network the homeserver shows up as an other devices item immediately. After approx a minute the home server will show up under the compuers items, along with my dune player and a virtual machine I didn't realize I left on. I have a shortcut straight to \\HOMESERVER that always opens instantly, but it is annoying for save file dialogs when you need to browse to the folder to save so I almost always save locally and move it later.

On the apple devices thing I hear that one of the reasons for all the delays and beta releases of ios 4.2 are to fix several wifi bugs, one specific to ipad and several on all device.

 

[Sol]

192.168.X.X is, I think, actually defined as a set of 256 private class C subnets. So I wouldn't be shocked if a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0 didn't completely work with that range. You should probably use one of the class B private subnets which are 172.[16-18].X.X or a chunk of the class A private subnet 10.X.X.X

I'm not saying it shouldn't work or that it won't but I wouldn't be shocked...

 

[ddrueding]

An interesting point, Sol. Unfortunately, so much infrastructure was set up statically in the 192.168.0.x range that I would be very hesitant to move it.

 

[MaxBurn]

Then I may have inadvertently messed up in a good way then when I built this home network here, using 10.2.1.x/24 and I will be adding a 10.2.2.x/24 and a 10.2.3.x/24 any day now. Not doing it because it is that big but I have some things I need to test BACnet with across routers and subnets. Should be fine?

 

[Mercutio]

192.168.X.X is, I think, actually defined as a set of 256 private class C subnets.

The whole range in the /16 is marked as available for use. Unless there's something hard coded someplace the binary math should work the same for it as any other /16.

 

[blakerwry]

Blake, can you expand on the /24 networking restriction you mentioned above? I need to expand beyond that soon.

This was a Windows XP SP1 security improvement where the firewall came with a few different options that had better (more restrictive) defaults.

The File and Printer Sharing exception in the firewall by default has a scope (and I believe it to be hidden) that limits access to either the current subnet or a /24 (I have read it both ways). You can simply change the scope manually or poke your own holes or disable the windows firewall altogether.

 

[blakerwry]

On the supernetting bit, 192.168.x.x is in the class C range. This only means that it falls within 192.0.1.1 to 223.255.254.254.

Since the concept of subnet masks and specifically variable length subnet masks, one has been able to supernet these networks into larger ones without problems. As long as your device(s) have no artificial limitations (e.g. the Apple bug) you should be fine.