>Hi,
>I am using a Bluetooth dongle in my Laptop to access internet by connecting 
>to my Desktop which in turn is connected to the internet through a ADSL
>modem.
>However, I am facing a strange problem after getting connected to the
>internet, which is that I am able to open only few sites in my browser, in
>fact I can only open google sites such as : gmail ,google, gtalk etc. Trying
>to open any other site results in no action. The browser keeps sending
>packets but their is no reply.  As such the page is blank with no visible
>page and ultimately the page times out.
>
>Although I am able to use TCP/IP applications but the problem is with web
>pages. I have tried using all sorts of browsers but of no use. The problem
>persists in all of them.
>
>I somehow found on the net that it could be the problem of MTU size set in
>the registry. Therefore I tried to lower down my MTU size to 1452, and tested
>that it is the maximum packet size I can afford on the bluetooth adapter.
>However, still after changing the MTU size in the registry I am unable to
>open all the other websites.
>Only google.com, and its related links are opening. There is no security
>level problem or moderation or firewall of any kind which is hindering the
>sites, because when I directly connect to the internet using ethernet adapter
>I can straightaway open the sites.

> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>> So when you lowered MTU to 1452, what test results convinced you to stop
>there?
>
>I pinged my defaullt gateway with this
> ping -l -f 1452 192.168.x.x
>which resulted in a reply from the other end as against the earlier replies
>which said packet size too large.
>This convinced me to stop there.
>
>
>> There's nothing magical about MTU that says "stop there", as minimum value in
>> all problem cases.
>>
>> What MTU references have you read, anyway?
>>
>
>I have read general stuff on the net including those available on the
>microsoft website regarding the ways to change the MTU size in the registry.
>
>
>
><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html
>>
>> And have you tried opening any websites by IP address?
>>
>
>Nopes, I have not tried openeinig any website with the IP addreess. Will
>that make any difference. If yes how ? Can you explain me the difference
>between these two cases.
>
>
><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:22:02 -0800, Shishir Srivastava
> <ShishirSrivast***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> So when you lowered MTU to 1452, what test results convinced you to stop
> >there?
> >
> >I pinged my defaullt gateway with this
> > ping -l -f 1452 192.168.x.x
> >which resulted in a reply from the other end as against the earlier replies
> >which said packet size too large.
> >This convinced me to stop there.
> >
> >
> >> There's nothing magical about MTU that says "stop there", as minimum value in
> >> all problem cases.
> >>
> >> What MTU references have you read, anyway?
> >>
> >
> >I have read general stuff on the net including those available on the
> >microsoft website regarding the ways to change the MTU size in the registry.
> >
> >
> >
> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html
> >>
> >> And have you tried opening any websites by IP address?
> >>
> >
> >Nopes, I have not tried openeinig any website with the IP addreess. Will
> >that make any difference. If yes how ? Can you explain me the difference
> >between these two cases.
> >
> >
> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html>
> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html
>
> Well, if your MTU is correct, then DNS is the next good possibility for your
> symptoms.  Read the immediately above link.
>
> Keeping an open mind, though, you might want to read the first link, and some of
> the linked articles.  Maybe another article will give you more perspective on
> the MTU issue.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:22:02 -0800, Shishir Srivastava
>> <ShishirSrivast***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> So when you lowered MTU to 1452, what test results convinced you to stop
>> >there?
>> >
>> >I pinged my defaullt gateway with this
>> > ping -l -f 1452 192.168.x.x
>> >which resulted in a reply from the other end as against the earlier replies
>> >which said packet size too large.
>> >This convinced me to stop there.
>> >
>> >
>> >> There's nothing magical about MTU that says "stop there", as minimum value in
>> >> all problem cases.
>> >>
>> >> What MTU references have you read, anyway?
>> >>
>> >
>> >I have read general stuff on the net including those available on the
>> >microsoft website regarding the ways to change the MTU size in the registry.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
>> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html
>> >>
>> >> And have you tried opening any websites by IP address?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Nopes, I have not tried openeinig any website with the IP addreess. Will
>> >that make any difference. If yes how ? Can you explain me the difference
>> >between these two cases.
>> >
>> >
>> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html>
>> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html
>>
>> Well, if your MTU is correct, then DNS is the next good possibility for your
>> symptoms.  Read the immediately above link.
>>
>> Keeping an open mind, though, you might want to read the first link, and some of
>> the linked articles.  Maybe another article will give you more perspective on
>> the MTU issue.

>Well, unfortunately the problem is not related to DNS, since there is no such
>error as 'Can't find the server', but rather that of page getting timed out.
>
>Also , I have checked that I can ping the websites through the command
>prompt. So the DNS servers are running fine. In fact I tried to view the
>source of the pages while my browser kept trying to load the page, and found
>that I get some part of the HTML code for the requested page , but that code
>is incomplete resulting in this issue.
>:((
>Any other lines of thinking !!
>
>Regards,
>Shishir

"Chuck" wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:19:01 -0800, Shishir Srivastava
> <ShishirSrivast***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >"Chuck" wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:22:02 -0800, Shishir Srivastava
> >> <ShishirSrivast***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So when you lowered MTU to 1452, what test results convinced you to stop
> >> >there?
> >> >
> >> >I pinged my defaullt gateway with this
> >> > ping -l -f 1452 192.168.x.x
> >> >which resulted in a reply from the other end as against the earlier replies
> >> >which said packet size too large.
> >> >This convinced me to stop there.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> There's nothing magical about MTU that says "stop there", as minimum value in
> >> >> all problem cases.
> >> >>
> >> >> What MTU references have you read, anyway?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I have read general stuff on the net including those available on the
> >> >microsoft website regarding the ways to change the MTU size in the registry.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html
> >> >>
> >> >> And have you tried opening any websites by IP address?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nopes, I have not tried openeinig any website with the IP addreess. Will
> >> >that make any difference. If yes how ? Can you explain me the difference
> >> >between these two cases.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html>
> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html
> >>
> >> Well, if your MTU is correct, then DNS is the next good possibility for your
> >> symptoms.  Read the immediately above link.
> >>
> >> Keeping an open mind, though, you might want to read the first link, and some of
> >> the linked articles.  Maybe another article will give you more perspective on
> >> the MTU issue.
>
> >Well, unfortunately the problem is not related to DNS, since there is no such
> >error as 'Can't find the server', but rather that of page getting timed out.
> >
> >Also , I have checked that I can ping the websites through the command
> >prompt. So the DNS servers are running fine. In fact I tried to view the
> >source of the pages while my browser kept trying to load the page, and found
> >that I get some part of the HTML code for the requested page , but that code
> >is incomplete resulting in this issue.
> >:((
> >Any other lines of thinking !!
> >
> >Regards,
> >Shishir
>
>
> Your main diagnosis is "the page is blank with no visible page and ultimately
> the page times out".  Not a lot of detail there.  Remember that I'm not there
> with you, all I can do is offer diagnostic possibilities.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html
>
> But, if you're absolutely certain that DNS and MTU are not causing any problems,
> look at LSP / Winsock corruption.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/problems-with-lsp-winsock-layer-in.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/problems-with-lsp-winsock-layer-in.html
>
> And rethink how you are diagnosing the problem.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My        email         is          AT         DOT
>    actual       address    pchuck       mvps        org.
>

>"Chuck" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:19:01 -0800, Shishir Srivastava
>> <ShishirSrivast***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Chuck" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:22:02 -0800, Shishir Srivastava
>> >> <ShishirSrivast***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> So when you lowered MTU to 1452, what test results convinced you to stop
>> >> >there?
>> >> >
>> >> >I pinged my defaullt gateway with this
>> >> > ping -l -f 1452 192.168.x.x
>> >> >which resulted in a reply from the other end as against the earlier replies
>> >> >which said packet size too large.
>> >> >This convinced me to stop there.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> There's nothing magical about MTU that says "stop there", as minimum value in
>> >> >> all problem cases.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What MTU references have you read, anyway?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I have read general stuff on the net including those available on the
>> >> >microsoft website regarding the ways to change the MTU size in the registry.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
>> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And have you tried opening any websites by IP address?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Nopes, I have not tried openeinig any website with the IP addreess. Will
>> >> >that make any difference. If yes how ? Can you explain me the difference
>> >> >between these two cases.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html>
>> >> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/identifying-dns-problem-in-your.html
>> >>
>> >> Well, if your MTU is correct, then DNS is the next good possibility for your
>> >> symptoms.  Read the immediately above link.
>> >>
>> >> Keeping an open mind, though, you might want to read the first link, and some of
>> >> the linked articles.  Maybe another article will give you more perspective on
>> >> the MTU issue.
>>
>> >Well, unfortunately the problem is not related to DNS, since there is no such
>> >error as 'Can't find the server', but rather that of page getting timed out.
>> >
>> >Also , I have checked that I can ping the websites through the command
>> >prompt. So the DNS servers are running fine. In fact I tried to view the
>> >source of the pages while my browser kept trying to load the page, and found
>> >that I get some part of the HTML code for the requested page , but that code
>> >is incomplete resulting in this issue.
>> >:((
>> >Any other lines of thinking !!
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Shishir
>>
>>
>> Your main diagnosis is "the page is blank with no visible page and ultimately
>> the page times out".  Not a lot of detail there.  Remember that I'm not there
>> with you, all I can do is offer diagnostic possibilities.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html
>>
>> But, if you're absolutely certain that DNS and MTU are not causing any problems,
>> look at LSP / Winsock corruption.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/problems-with-lsp-winsock-layer-in.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/problems-with-lsp-winsock-layer-in.html
>>
>> And rethink how you are diagnosing the problem.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html

>Hi Chuck,
>I know this can be very frustating for someone like you who really wants to
>help. But the point is that in most of the cases people are not very
>comfortable with the networking jargon and moreso with the problem itself
>which they are facing.
>
>But I am pretty much sure that windows has tons of its own mysterious flaws
>no one can understand.  And to just give you a glimpse of what's happening in
>my case is that even though my laptop and desktop are on different subnets, I
>am able to connect access my Desktop's LAN and subsequently the internet,
>only that the internet access is restriced to the google's sites [:(].
>
>Also , something strange which I found out on doing ipconfig /all ,was that
>my default gateway was set same as my IP address. I dont't know even then how
>I was able to access the internet.
>
>Coming to what you asked to look at LSP / Winsock corruption. I again think
>if there would have been any problem concerning LSP/ Winsock corruption then,
>I should not have been able to access all the other websites when I am
>directly connected to the internet. It's only when I connect through the
>bluetooth that the problem is arising.
>
>Any clue as to find out the difference between other sites and google.com
>sites , which can be helpful in tracing the bug.
>
>Many Thanks,
>Shishir