Windows 9X and TCP/IP

[Tea]

Where is Tannin when you need him? I'm trying to do this on my own, and I'm lost.

This morning I finished hooking up the NT box in the workshop (K6-III 500) to the TCP/IP thingie, slipped Folding@Home console onto it, and it's crunching away quite happily. But that damn Couchtest character is walking away from me. I need more machines!

So I built an Athlon XP 1900, slipped in a network card and an old 1.7GB Seagate hard drive, hooked it up to the network, installed Windows 98SE. So far, so good. But I can't get the damn thing to TCP/IP!

OK, I've watched Tannin doing this. It seems easy enough. You give it any host name you like (I'm using the same host as the computer name for NetBUI purposes), set the domain to the same as your local workgroup, give it a DNS server name or two (such as those used by my dial-up providers).

Then, on the gateway page, you stick in the IP address of the machine that belongs to the modem: 192.168.1.1 in this case.

Disable WINS Resolution

Specify an IP address: in this case I'm using 192.168.1.9, and set the subnet mast to 255.255.255.0

Bindings I'm not sure about, but Tannin just left Client for Microsioft Networks ticked and file and printer sharing unticked, so I copied that.But I don't think that page should matter at all for my purposes.

In Advanced, it shouldn't matter if I set this protocol to be the default protocol or not.

On the NetBIOS tab the "enable netBIOS over TCP/IP" entry is ticked and geyed out, so I just left that as is.

Reboot and Presto!

But it didn't Prest, and it didn't go!

I tried pinging 203.7.198.18 (which is www.redhill.net.au) and it timed out. Tried pinging 192.168.1.1 (the main server) and that didn't go either.

So I checked if I had ordinary Windows type networking: nope. Well, I know how to fix that: protocol => add => Microsoft => NetBUI => apply => reboot.

Yup. I have a network: I can see the other local machines, they can see me. Ping 192.168.1.1 Nothing!

Double check the connections, the settings, copy them exactly from the Win98 box in the back office (that is crunching merrily away). Triple-checked everything. Rebooted a million times. Nothing!

OK. I'll do it again.

Format C: reinstall, using win95B this time, because it's quicker to install and so long as it's Win32 it doesn't matter. Repeat exact steps. (Except this time it decded to put NetBUI in all by itself and worked for ordinary Windows networking all by itself. Can see other drives, copy files, all that stuff.)

Ping 192.168.1.1 Nothing!

Only machine I can ping successfully is 192.168.1.9 - which is to say this same machine.

Now what?

 

[Mercutio]

TCP/IP Troubleshooting

1. Start by verifying that IP is in Network Control Panel, that it's configured appropriately for your network (you're using ICS, so I think you should leave a dynamic assignement on, but 192.168.1.x is pretty reasonable otherwise), that you have a DNS server and a gateway address and those are correct as well, and that you're properly subnet-ed (255.255.255.0 is correct).
Setting up File Sharing over TCP/IP means enabling NetBIOS over TCP (NBT). That's how you're able to "see shares and printers". Installing "File and Print Sharing for Microsoft Networks" lets you create shares locally.

2. Verify again with IPCONFIG/WINIPCFG (If you're doing dynamic addressing try release/renew.)

3. ping 127.0.0.1

4. ping the address you've assigned or received through DHCP/ICS.

5. Ping the gateway address

6. Ping something remote via IP. 64.58.76.176 = yahoo.com

7. Also verify DNS is working. ping www.yahoo.com.

8. At this point you should have TCP/IP installed and functional. Note that it takes a couple minutes for filesharing to start working properly, except for mapped drives/printers and stuff in your LMHOSTS file.

Good enough?

 

[Tea]

Excuse me, Mercutio. I was unclear. We have two different connection sharing setups.

At home it's a Windows 2000 master using ICS, with a W98SE box connected to it via a X-over cable. That one is the one Tannin started the other thread about, and it is working OK.

At the office, it's a bit more complicated. The master unit (i.e., the one with the modem) is running ECS (AKA OS/2 5.0), and using the Injoy dialer, which can do Network Address Translation, once you (a) tick the obvious box and (b) realise that there is a second tick box hidden away on another page - that took me an hour and a half to discover last night. http://www.fx.dk/injoy

The existing connected machines run NT 4.0 (which hooks up fine), W98SE (which hooks up fine) and OS/2 4.5 (which hooks up fine). (Plus a DOS box and another OS/2 machine that are on the network but not using TCP/IP, only NetBIOS and can be ignored.)

To this I'm trying to add an extra, temporary machine just to crunch proteins and catch up with Cougtek. (The things we do!)

But the way I look at it, I'm making some sort of a dent in that vast black mental hole I have, labelled "TCP/IP and all things related", so provided I don't try your paitence too far by asking too many stupid questions, I figure it's all got some practical benefit in the long run, even if I ignore the nebulous sometime-in-the-future benefit of contributing to the understanding of proteins.

IP in Network Control Panel. Yep. Static assignment to 192.168.1.x works on the other three slave machines on the same network. (Here at home it's ICS and dynamic.) Yep. DNS server address: yep. Gateway address: yep: 192.168.1.1 = the ECS box, yep. Properly subnet-ed: yep: 255.255.255.0. So far so good.

Now, File Sharing over TCP/IP - I don't think I need that do I? On the "real" machines - i.e., the working daily-use ones, I already have file and print sharing via NetBIOS or SMB or whatever you are supposed to call it. (I'm damned if I'm going to call a mostly Microsoft-free LAN "Windows Networking"!) I don't care if the file and print sharing is via SMB or TCP/IP, just so long as it works (which it does), and I assume that TCP/IP is more common these days and thus a fraction less secure.

(I have firewall and filter software on hand, but have not installed it yet - one step at a time.)

I do have NetBIOS over TCP installed on the offending machine, but that won't matter, will it - insofar as I don't care about sharing files with this one.

I'll see what IPCONFIG/WINIPCFG has to say. At this stage, the only address I can ping is the machine itself: 192.168.1.9. Didn't try 127.0.0.1 - that's one of those "special" addresses, isn't it, like 192.168.1.0, that has a particular set-in-concrete function. I should be able to remember what it is.

One other possibility: there are four or five versions of Injoy, ranging from the basic dialer through to an all-singing, all-dancing unlimited number of connections corporate thing. The version I have allows a maximum of four external (i.e., internet via modem) connections, including the host machine. It's another US$35 for the 12 machine version. But that shouldn't stop me from pinging other machines on the LAN, I wouldn't have thought. But I'll do some more reading on that one: they have some very informative links on their site.

And you are being a great help. Thankyou.

 

[Mercutio]

127.0.0.1 is a loopback address. If your TCP/IP software is working properly, a ping to the loopback should return a minimum-time response. On my linux boxes it's down around 200 mircro-seconds. Windows doesn't show anything below 10ms.

Assuming IP is configured properly on your host, the next thing to look at is cabling/hardware issues. Specifically make sure you didn't do anything silly like plug your cable into an uplink port (I take it you're using a cheapo sort of hub or switch? Most of those have a toggle for one port or another to change it from a standard port to a crossover port for connection to another hub/switch). Make sure your cable is OK, not twisted or tied in knots or something equally silly, and that the connector is firmly attached on all four pairs of wires.

After that, absent real test equipment, you get into swapping. Try a different cable. Try a different machine on that port on your switch. You can probably figure out the drill.

Of course it sounds like NetBeui is working. If netbeui is working, I'd start looking at the software config on the PC. Chances are you goofed up somewhere.

I have run in to machines that won't do TCP/IP. Usually they had their Windows installation abused somehow, or had a virus. Since that isn't the case here, we'll just have to take one step at a time. I'd say clear everything out of network control panel and try again (you can use the practice, anyway).

Can ECS do DHCP service? It might be a good idea to just let something assign addresses etc. so there's less of a chance to mess things up.

 

[Tea]

Yup: I have NetBeui working fine.

I think that for DHCP I need Warp Server, which is $1500 or so a copy. (Roughly equivalent to NT AS, or a Netware licence.) Though it's amazing to see the stuff that I sometimes discover hidden away inside it.

But, seeing as you mention it, I do have something that can do DHCP: a Bay Networks Netgear thingie that I picked up for nix. I have it at the office: a blue box about the size of two CD-ROM drives laid side by side, with a 56k modem, and four 10K/sec ethernet connectors. I looked it up a while ago, and they sell for ~US300 or so. At least that's what I discovered with a Google search. It's designed to do secure internet sharing. I don't have the software, or a 16V AC power supply, and I need a Windows box for first-time configuration of it, but that's easy, I can make a PSU out of spare parts, there are Windows boxes here, and I can download the software from the manufacturer's website. (I'll post a link when I get to work - it's on my desk.)

Only trouble is, it's 10MB/sec and my network is 100MB/sec, so I'd have to use it in parallel with my existing wiring and it would be a non-trivial task to lay a duplicate set of cables. There might be ways round that though.

I will check out the four connection Injoy limit thingie (easy to check - I just clear the TCP/IP stack on the server and test it again - there are probably more elegant ways but I'll just switch off a couple of workstations and reboot the server). As I understand it, if that is my problem, it should make it impossible to do the NAT thing on packets from the fifth machine (the XP 1800 I'm having trouble with) but not interfere at all with the local network side of things.

Sol, who is good at this stuff, tells me that there are all sorts of little fiddly troubles with Win9X TCP/IP: machines that just decide to give trouble, and that you need W2K or XP to get bulletproof plug-in-and-work Windows TCP/IP.

Which brings me to another idea: the only purpose of this machine is to fold proteins: why does it need to be a Windows box at all? I have a Mandrake 8.1 or 8.2 handy, and there is a Linux version of the Folding@Home client.

WTF? I might as well give it a go: this is all good retraining for me anyway.

 

[Mercutio]

You can use the same cables for 10 and 100mbit. Most NICs will auto-sense which to use. Depending on the network equipment, you may be force to 10Mbit if you attach a 10Mbit device.
Since your sharing a modem connection, it isn't like you need a 100Mbit connection for that, anyway.

 

[Tea]

But these same cables carry my LAN traffic. I don't fancy a 90% reduction in network speed just so I can fold proteins.

 

[Mercutio]

Gads I can't believe I posted that.

If you're doing the Linux thing, make sure you stick in a decent NIC. You'll do IP configuration during OS install, and it'll work, dammit.
Make sure you turn off any daemons you aren't planning to use.

 

[P5-133XL]

If Tea has 1886 phone lines, ISP accounts, serial connections, 56K modems, and the ISP allows them to be multi-linked together he could be running 100mb/s over 56Kmodems all running at 53kb/s. In that case it would be critical in not to use the 10Mb hub. On the unlikely case that he is actually using a single modem then the 10Mb hub will do just fine for sharing the 56Kb traffic.

 

[P5-133XL]

You can have multiple nics in a computer. One could be a 10base and one could be 100base. The 100base for the lan traffic and the 10base for internet traffic.

 

[Mercutio]

You'd have to try it and see. A good switch will just use 10Mbit to the node that requires 10Mbit.

 

[Tannin]

Can you connect two hubs together?

I know that you can stack them - connect two 8 port hubs together to make one 16-port one, more or less, using a cable in a particular dedicated socket, but is it possible to (for example) plug the Netgear thing into one ordinary port of my 8-port switch and then plug other machines (and a modem) into the 10Mb/sec Netgear hub?

 

[Mercutio]

You either need a dediccated uplink port or a crossover cable for that.

 

[P5-133XL]

Yes, you can connect two 8 port hubs/switches together. Simply use a crossover cable on two of the ports and you will have a 14 port hub/switch. If the hubs/switches have a link connector then you would connect the link ports with a normal cable rather than the crossover. The supposed limit for doing this is 3 devices before latency becomes an issue.

Note that if the devices are different speeds then the switch needs to be able to auto negociate the speed. This is typically indicated by the 10/100 designation. There are two ways that switches do this. The first is to have a large buffer while using flow controll: This will typically only affect the slower ports. The second, less preferable method, is to switch all ports to the slowest speed connected: This will convert your 10/100 switch to a 10Mbps switch - Not good. Older switches and no-name brands tend to use method #2 and better switches use method #1