On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 10:50 +0100, G T Smith wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > 
> > My Netgear wireless router, WGT624 v3, crashed.  The wired section no
> > longer provides DHCP.  In order to provide service (wireless) for my
> > wife (and maintain a generally pleasant environment) I replaced with
> > wireless with an old Netgear RP114, long out of service.  
> > 
> > I now have modem to RP114 to base computer and using another port on
> > the RP114 to input on the WGT624 provide wireless to my wife's computer.
> > 
> > Addressing on the RP114 is 192.168.0.1 and my box becomes 192.168.0.2
> > Netstat shows connections also from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.1 (which
> > *was* the WGT624 addr).
> > 
> > udp    0   0 192.168.1.2:30724       192.168.1.1:domain    ESTABLISHED 
> > udp    0   0 192.168.1.2:51408       192.168.1.1:domain    ESTABLISHED 
> > 
> > 
> > I have changed /etc/resolv.conf to use 192.168.0.1 as nameserver.
> > 
> > Ipconfig on my wife's computer indicates it is 192.168.1.3 with a
> > gateway of 192.168.1.1.
> > 
> > I cannot ping 192.168.1.[1-3]
> > 
> > What changes do I need to make to connect with samba via my home
> > network, or is my only choice spending $$$s.
> > 
> > 
> >           192.168.0.1     192.168.0.2
> >   Modem --> RP114  --->  MyComputer
> >              \
> >           \ 
> >           WGT624 --> (Wireless) ==> Wife Computer
> >           192.168.1.1                  192.168.1.3
> > 
> > I can access the WGT624 from my wife's computer, but not the RP114.
> > I can access the RP114 from my computer, but not the WGT624
> > 
> > at least not at my knowledge level  :^)
> > 
> > tks,
> 
> a) For an environment involving 2 or 3 machines DHCP is more likely to
> give grief than any benefit, static addressing is probably easier to
> maintain. I know DHCP seems easy but there are some hidden pitfalls in
> DHCP which the naive can fall into. If you wish to continue using DHCP
> make damn certain that only one device is supplying addresses, otherwise
> you will playing network address lotto.
> 
I disagree.  If she's using wireless, chances are good that his wife's
computer is a laptop and she uses it more than just at home.  Static
addressing is only good when the machine never leaves its spot.   He'll
get more grief from his wife than from his network if she always has to
change her IP address setup every time she leaves or returns to the
house.


-- 
---Bryen---

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to