On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:31:05 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>We have a home network with two older computers running Win98 SE.  We have a
>cable modem on the WAN side of a wireless/wired Router; all computers,then,
>are on the LAN side of the router which is a DHCP server.  All computers have
>firewall software, as well.  We had tweaked the firewalls on the two older
>computers so they can find each other in a workgroup we've named Office.  I
>also have a laptop with Win XP Pro with NO 3rd party firewall software and
>the Windows firewall disabled, which I use at my office on a wired LAN, but
>at home using my wireless card--no problem.  BUT--
>My son is home from college with his Windows Media Center PC; he has Norton
>Firewall.  If his firewall is enabled, the home network works fine; but if we
>try to set him up to use the home network by giving him exactly the same
>settings as my laptop has, and then turn off his firewalls, NONE of the
>computers can find each other!!!!  With firewall engaged, he can access the
>internet, everyone else can access the internet, and the other computers all
>find each other.
>CAn anyone suggest why, if he disables his firewall, the entire network
>ceases to function?

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:31:05 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We have a home network with two older computers running Win98 SE.  We have a
> >cable modem on the WAN side of a wireless/wired Router; all computers,then,
> >are on the LAN side of the router which is a DHCP server.  All computers have
> >firewall software, as well.  We had tweaked the firewalls on the two older
> >computers so they can find each other in a workgroup we've named Office.  I
> >also have a laptop with Win XP Pro with NO 3rd party firewall software and
> >the Windows firewall disabled, which I use at my office on a wired LAN, but
> >at home using my wireless card--no problem.  BUT--
> >My son is home from college with his Windows Media Center PC; he has Norton
> >Firewall.  If his firewall is enabled, the home network works fine; but if we
> >try to set him up to use the home network by giving him exactly the same
> >settings as my laptop has, and then turn off his firewalls, NONE of the
> >computers can find each other!!!!  With firewall engaged, he can access the
> >internet, everyone else can access the internet, and the other computers all
> >find each other.
> >CAn anyone suggest why, if he disables his firewall, the entire network
> >ceases to function?
>
> Kurt,
>
> Quite possibly, your son's computer is causing a browser conflict, with his
> firewall off.
>
> Try running "browstat status" from a couple of your computers, both with his
> firewall on (and no problems seeing other computers), and with his firewall off
> (and the entire network ceasing to function), and compare the results.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/browstat-utility-from-microsoft.html>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem - it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       sonic      net.
>

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:04 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:31:05 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >We have a home network with two older computers running Win98 SE.  We have a
>> >cable modem on the WAN side of a wireless/wired Router; all computers,then,
>> >are on the LAN side of the router which is a DHCP server.  All computers have
>> >firewall software, as well.  We had tweaked the firewalls on the two older
>> >computers so they can find each other in a workgroup we've named Office.  I
>> >also have a laptop with Win XP Pro with NO 3rd party firewall software and
>> >the Windows firewall disabled, which I use at my office on a wired LAN, but
>> >at home using my wireless card--no problem.  BUT--
>> >My son is home from college with his Windows Media Center PC; he has Norton
>> >Firewall.  If his firewall is enabled, the home network works fine; but if we
>> >try to set him up to use the home network by giving him exactly the same
>> >settings as my laptop has, and then turn off his firewalls, NONE of the
>> >computers can find each other!!!!  With firewall engaged, he can access the
>> >internet, everyone else can access the internet, and the other computers all
>> >find each other.
>> >CAn anyone suggest why, if he disables his firewall, the entire network
>> >ceases to function?
>>
>> Kurt,
>>
>> Quite possibly, your son's computer is causing a browser conflict, with his
>> firewall off.
>>
>> Try running "browstat status" from a couple of your computers, both with his
>> firewall on (and no problems seeing other computers), and with his firewall off
>> (and the entire network ceasing to function), and compare the results.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/browstat-utility-from-microsoft.html>

>Thanks for the very quick reply, which may shed some insight into my problem;
>but according to the link you provided, the browser status will work on the
>WinXP computers (and, I assume therefore, the Media Center computer); but NOT
>the two Win 98 SE computers.  I will give it a try, nevertheless, with my
>laptop first and see what happens.
>
>"Chuck" wrote:

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:01:04 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:31:05 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We have a home network with two older computers running Win98 SE.  We have a
> >> >cable modem on the WAN side of a wireless/wired Router; all computers,then,
> >> >are on the LAN side of the router which is a DHCP server.  All computers have
> >> >firewall software, as well.  We had tweaked the firewalls on the two older
> >> >computers so they can find each other in a workgroup we've named Office.  I
> >> >also have a laptop with Win XP Pro with NO 3rd party firewall software and
> >> >the Windows firewall disabled, which I use at my office on a wired LAN, but
> >> >at home using my wireless card--no problem.  BUT--
> >> >My son is home from college with his Windows Media Center PC; he has Norton
> >> >Firewall.  If his firewall is enabled, the home network works fine; but if we
> >> >try to set him up to use the home network by giving him exactly the same
> >> >settings as my laptop has, and then turn off his firewalls, NONE of the
> >> >computers can find each other!!!!  With firewall engaged, he can access the
> >> >internet, everyone else can access the internet, and the other computers all
> >> >find each other.
> >> >CAn anyone suggest why, if he disables his firewall, the entire network
> >> >ceases to function?
> >>
> >> Kurt,
> >>
> >> Quite possibly, your son's computer is causing a browser conflict, with his
> >> firewall off.
> >>
> >> Try running "browstat status" from a couple of your computers, both with his
> >> firewall on (and no problems seeing other computers), and with his firewall off
> >> (and the entire network ceasing to function), and compare the results.
> >> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/browstat-utility-from-microsoft.html>
>
> >Thanks for the very quick reply, which may shed some insight into my problem;
> >but according to the link you provided, the browser status will work on the
> >WinXP computers (and, I assume therefore, the Media Center computer); but NOT
> >the two Win 98 SE computers.  I will give it a try, nevertheless, with my
> >laptop first and see what happens.
> >
> >"Chuck" wrote:
>
> Kurt,
>
> DOHH.  I missed the Win98 bit.  You can't run browstat on Win98.  I'm sure it's
> a browser problem now though.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/windows-9x-9598me-and-browser.html>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem - it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       sonic      net.
>

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:47:02 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your help so far.  It is, I believe at this stage, a given that
> >there is a browser conflict with the son's computer (a) connected to the
> >network and (b) not firewalled; which I assume results from his computer
> >trying to function as a DHCP server, or something like that.  Do you have any
> >suggestions on what setting to change on his computer, given that my laptop
> >which has XP Pro w/ SP 2, does NOT cause a conflict on the same network?  I
> >have checked--he doesn't have any protocols installed other than TCP/IP; the
> >only unique thing about his TCP/IP seems to be that some newer version is
> >optionally installed on his computer.  Can we safely remove that new, MS
> >version of TCP/IP?
>
> Kurt,
>
> What is the newer TCP/IP?  By any chance IPV6?
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/fix-network-problems-but-clean-up.html>
>
> Did you run browstat from your laptop, and from his computer?  My guess is his
> browser is running (it's not normally disabled until problems are discovered),
> and it's conflicting with the browser on your LAN.  Comparing 2 browstat logs
> should give us a clue.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/browstat-utility-from-microsoft.html>
>
> If it is a conflict, you'll need to disable his browser.  Or leave his firewall
> on (why do you need to disable his firewalls anyway?).
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem - it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       sonic      net.
>

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:31:04 -0700, "Kurt" <K***@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Thanks again.  It is IP Ver 6; I'll remove it from the list of network
>components.
>
>Regarding why we would disable his firewall--I'll have to re-run some of our
>experiments.  It may be that with his firewall up he wasn't able to access
>our other computers.  If this is incorrect, then you're right, of course--no
>reason to disable his firewall if he he can access network printers and
>computers.  However, I believe what we encountered was with firewall enabled,
>he could see other computers but not browse the network; but if firewall was
>disabled, the whole network went down.  But we are set up for NetBios over
>TCP; if IPV 6 conflicts, perhaps its removal will solve the problems.

>> IPV6 is where you need to start.  The word I got from an IPV6 forum is
>> that it's
>> not compatible with Windows Networking (NetBIOS Over TCP/IP).
>
>
>
>Hi, Chuck.
>
>NetBios over TCP/IP is not supported over IPv6, that's true.
>
>But so long as you have IPv4 installed, NBT will continue to
>work over that ( or any other transport that supports it. )
>
>NBT will not work if you have IPv6 only.
>
>Installing IPv6 should not break NBT over existing IPv4.
>
>I'm running all my machines dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 in a native
>IPv6 routed network here, and I have no problems with NBT.

>> Ron,
>>
>> That's interesting.  I was told on the IPV6 forum that running IPV6 with
>> NBT
>> requires SMB rather than native Windows Networking.  Are you running port
>> 445,
>> or 137-139?
>>
>> Any idea why so many show here for help, and find relief after un
>> installing
>> IPV6?
>>
>
>
>I don't know why adding IPv6 would break regular windows networking.
>It does not here.
>I'm just thinking aloud here, to see if I can see a possible failure
>mechanism.
>So let me ramble on a bit....
>
>Let's start by understanding how windows networking functions:
>What protocols and ports are used etc.
>First, we need to clear up the SMB thing you mention.
>We need to tidy up the terminology a bit.
>
>All windows networks use SMB, back as far as LanManger and DOS.
>
>Pre-win2000 used SMB over NetBIOS.
>NetBIOS provides 2 things:
>  A name resolution mechanism, and a data connection mechanism.
>NetBIOS in turn could use one of several transport protocols,
>but we finally settled on TCP/IP.
>
>So a win98 network would typically run SMB over NetBIOS over TCP/IP.
>
>A client would use NetBIOS to resolve the target name to an
>IPv4 address, then establish a NetBIOS data connection to it.
>
>With Windows200, many things changed.
>There was a shift away from NetBIOS.
>A win2k+ network does not need NetBIOS to share files.
>
>DNS replaced NetBIOS for name resolution.
>Direct Hosting of SMB over TCP/IP was introduced on port 445.
>The NetBIOS layer could be removed.

>A win2k+ network typically runs SMB over TCP/IP.
>
>So in a pure win2k+ network, a client queries DNS to resolve the target
>name,
>and establishes a Direct Hosted SMB session with it on port 445.
>You can disable NetBIOS over TCP/IP in this scenario.
>( Certain things will still break, so I'd not reccomend this! )

>The older mechanisms still live on for backward compatablility, however.
>
>Firstly, we seem to need a local DNS server now.
>There is typically no DNS server on a small p-p network.
>DNS name resolution will fail, and if it does, we fall back on legacy
>NetBIOS name resolution mechanisms, finally falling back on NetBIOS
>broadcasts.  So NetBIOS lives on for name resolution in p-p LANS.

>Secondly, the target may be a legacy win98 box.
>Assuming we can resolve the name, connection to port 445 will fail.
>So we fall back on NetBIOS once again.
>
>So in summary, a win2k+ network will try to use DNS for name resolution, but
>will fall back on NetBIOS if it has to.  It will then try to connect using
>direct Hosting if it can , but will fall back on NetBIOS if it has to.
>
>Do we agree so far?
>Now ,where does IPv6 fit into this?
>
>If you install IPv6, it will try to auto-configure itself.
>In a proper native IPv6 environment, it will do router solicitation / router
>announcements and will auto-configure an IPv6 address based on this.  If it
>fails to do this ( which it will in most current small non-IPv6 networks
>where there's no IPv6 router making announcements ), then it will attempt to
>gain IPv6 connectivity to the internet by a variety of automatic tunneling
>mechanisms.   Teredo is one such tunneling mechanism, which is designed to
>tunnel through NAT.   So the IPv6 stack will do its best to gain Internet
>connectivity one way or another.
>
>When IPv6 is installed, it will bind to both File+Print sharing and Client
>for MS networks.
>However, that is rather bogus.
>
>"A computer running Windows XP with Service Pack 1 or Windows XP with
>Service Pack 2 cannot access the file shares of a computer running Windows
>Server 2003 using IPv6 and cannot host file shares that can be accessed over
>IPv6. In other words, it cannot be a file sharing client or server over
>IPv6.  " ( Joseph Davies )
>
>So I don't really know what these bindings represent on an XP machine.   I
>will query this.
>
>In my LAN, the bindings are shown as checked on both the XP clients and the
>2003 servers.  The IPv6 bindings are at the top of the binding order.
>Everything works well, but the actual F+P sharing traffic *must* be flowing
>over IPv4, based on the above.  I've not sniffed the traffic lately to see.
>
>Windows server2003 does support F+P sharing over IPv6.
>
>In any case, the support for File + Print sharing over IPv6 will be by
>Direct Hosting of SMB over TCP/IP, not via NetBIOS.   IPv6 does not support
>NetBIOS.

>I have not been able to repro a case of IPv6 breaking normal networking, and
>I've been using IPv6 for several years now.
>It would be interesting to un-bind F+P sharing from IPv6 and see if it makes
>a difference.
>
>There is one mode of failure I have seen, but not related to F+P sharing.
>Most IPv6 aware client programs ( like IE6 ) will query DNS for both A (
>IPv4 ) and AAAA ( IPv6 ) records.   If DNS replies with both A and AAAA
>records, the IPv6 address will be preferred, and tried first if IPv6 is
>installed.  Now, if IPv6 is installed, BUT there is no IPv6 routing
>infrastructure in place, then the attempt to use IPv6 will time out before
>failing.   The client program will eventually fall back on IPv4, which will
>work.
>
>An example of this is a broken IPv6 machine ( IPv6 installed, but no IPv6
>connectivity ) tries to go to anIPv6-enabled web site.   Assuming theDNS
>server is smart enough to supply the AAA records, the browser will try the
>broken IPv6 route for a long time before falling back in IPv4.
>
>Could this be the cause of the problems?
>A machine attempting to connect over IPv6 and failing?
>I doubt it.
>
>Even if both machines had IPv6 addresses, but no IPv6 connectivity to each
>other, why would they try?
>How would a simple P-P lan resolve a name to an IPv6 address when it's only
>local name resolution mechanism is NetBIOS?
>NetBIOS would never supply an IPv6 address for the connection attempt to
>fail on.
>Any connection attempt would result in NetBIOS name resolution, which would
>always resolve to an IPv4 address.
>
>So I still can't figure out the failure mechanism.
>And like I say, it's all working well here.

> Ron,
>
> The NT browser uses NetBIOS datagrams.  Did this change under NT5?
> <http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/deploy/prodspecs/ntbrowse.mspx>
>
> Do you use Network Neighborhood to locate your shares, or do you directly
> map
> shares?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck