Cannot note browse web from client computer on simple network. NetBT problem?

19 Dec 2005 5:20 PM

kebabDylan

So here is the setup. I have comcast cable modem connected to a
desktop. Desktop is connected to a linksys wireless router. I have a
laptop with a wireless card. Simple enough. Has worked fine for several
years.

All of a sudden, my laptop cannot browswer websites with either firefox
or IE. The strange thing is I can ping any site. Type in yahoo.com and
it pings the IP address fine. I can ftp to my ftp sites fine using IE.
But if i try to browse using http:// its a no go.

I have tried reseting/reinstalling tcpip -no luck
I have cleared the DNS cache - no luck.

Oh yeah... Google works fine. gmail is find, google.com, google
groups. Everyonce in a while the comcast site will appear after sitting
there loading for 10 minutes. But mostly its page contains no data or
site not found or something like that.

Event view does show a NetBT failed to load driver error but I cannot
for the live of me figure out how to fix it.

My work laptop connects fine to my wireless network to browse the web,
so Its gotta be the actual laptop settings.

Any help is much welcomed

19 Dec 2005 9:51 PM

Chuck

On 19 Dec 2005 09:20:45 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

Show quoteHide quote

>So here is the setup. I have comcast cable modem connected to a
>desktop. Desktop is connected to a linksys wireless router. I have a
>laptop with a wireless card. Simple enough. Has worked fine for several
>years.
>
>All of a sudden, my laptop cannot browswer websites with either firefox
>or IE. The strange thing is I can ping any site. Type in yahoo.com and
>it pings the IP address fine. I can ftp to my ftp sites fine using IE.
>But if i try to browse using http:// its a no go.
>
>I have tried reseting/reinstalling tcpip -no luck
>I have cleared the DNS cache - no luck.
>
>Oh yeah... Google works fine. gmail is find, google.com, google
>groups. Everyonce in a while the comcast site will appear after sitting
>there loading for 10 minutes. But mostly its page contains no data or
>site not found or something like that.
>
>Event view does show a NetBT failed to load driver error but I cannot
>for the live of me figure out how to fix it.
>
>My work laptop connects fine to my wireless network to browse the web,
>so Its gotta be the actual laptop settings.
>
>Any help is much welcomed

This sounds like an MTU setting problem.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html

Or maybe an 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

--
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.

20 Dec 2005 3:01 PM

kebabDylan

thanks for the info.

I did leave out one big item... The desktop, that is connected
directly to the cable modem and that is doing the internet connection
sharing, can get to any and every webite with no problems.

20 Dec 2005 6:03 PM

Chuck

On 20 Dec 2005 07:01:34 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

>thanks for the info.
>
>I did leave out one big item... The desktop, that is connected
>directly to the cable modem and that is doing the internet connection
>sharing, can get to any and every webite with no problems.

Both the LSP / Winsock problem, and the MTU problem, are specific to individual
computers. The MTU problem is a known issue with ICS clients. Both problems
are possible on the client, while not affecting the host (desktop).

Is the desktop properly firewalled? ICS is a NAT router, so the laptop should
be protected by that, but the desktop might be exposed. Why do you not have a
router between the modem and the 2 computers, with the 2 computers connected as
peers?

--
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.

21 Dec 2005 5:02 AM

kebabDylan

thanks again. My setup is basically that way because that is the
equipment that I was given and the only way I knew how to set it up.
Its a linksys router. Never tried hooking it up to the modem directly.
Like I said, this setup has worked fine for years. A couple of new
things. One thing I noticed and It might be related. I installed the
Cisco VPN software on my desktop about the same time that his problem
began. I did notice that the cisco software had a set MTU application
that let you set that for all your various connections. I never
actually used the vpn, but it was installed. I uninstalled it. it
didn't fix it. THis was on the host computer.

I ran the winsock repair application you linked to with no luck.

I tried the pinging with the mtu declared. I was getting the
fragmentation type message. I decreased the number be two but instead
of getting a sucess, it went from the fragmentation message to a
timeout.

21 Dec 2005 5:41 AM

Chuck

On 20 Dec 2005 21:02:43 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

Show quoteHide quote

>thanks again. My setup is basically that way because that is the
>equipment that I was given and the only way I knew how to set it up.
>Its a linksys router. Never tried hooking it up to the modem directly.
>Like I said, this setup has worked fine for years. A couple of new
>things. One thing I noticed and It might be related. I installed the
>Cisco VPN software on my desktop about the same time that his problem
>began. I did notice that the cisco software had a set MTU application
>that let you set that for all your various connections. I never
>actually used the vpn, but it was installed. I uninstalled it. it
>didn't fix it. THis was on the host computer.
>
>I ran the winsock repair application you linked to with no luck.
>
>I tried the pinging with the mtu declared. I was getting the
>fragmentation type message. I decreased the number be two but instead
>of getting a sucess, it went from the fragmentation message to a
>timeout.

My gut feel is that you have an MTU problem. Which article did you use as a
reference? Let's review the correct procedure, and try and see what is going
wrong.

--
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.

21 Dec 2005 7:34 PM

kebabDylan

i did a search including cisco vpn with my various search terms. Looks
like installing the vpn sets the mtu settings. I have since uninstalled
the cisco vpn but still no luck. I guess now I need to reset the mtu
settings to the default.

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs/browse_frm/thread/e94a15fdb44c7543/85478a0836aaa9a1?lnk=st&q=cisco+vpn+websites+ping+windows+xp&rnum=19&hl=en#85478a0836aaa9a1

so my question is this. I installed the vpn on the host pc. do I need
to change the mtu settings there or on the client?

22 Dec 2005 12:52 AM

Chuck

On 21 Dec 2005 11:34:41 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

>i did a search including cisco vpn with my various search terms. Looks
>like installing the vpn sets the mtu settings. I have since uninstalled
>the cisco vpn but still no luck. I guess now I need to reset the mtu
>settings to the default.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs/browse_frm/thread/e94a15fdb44c7543/85478a0836aaa9a1?lnk=st&q=cisco+vpn+websites+ping+windows+xp&rnum=19&hl=en#85478a0836aaa9a1
>
>so my question is this. I installed the vpn on the host pc. do I need
>to change the mtu settings there or on the client?

Is the problem computer connecting thru the VPN to get to the Internet? What's
the other end of the tunnel? A router, or another computer?

Who owns the other end of the tunnel? Start with your end; if you can't get
your end working, then you need to talk to the owner of the other end.

--
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.

22 Dec 2005 3:30 AM

kebabDylan

I'm not even using the vpn. I had just installed it to use in the
future.

22 Dec 2005 6:41 AM

Chuck

On 21 Dec 2005 19:30:15 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

>I'm not even using the vpn. I had just installed it to use in the
>future.

In which case, you should check MTU settings on the would be client.

--
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.

22 Dec 2005 1:30 PM

kebabDylan

thanks!

I finally got my laptop up and running. Indeed it was the MTU setting.
One last question. To get it working the mtu setting is now at 1200.
What is the significants of that number on performance if any. I kinda
understand what it is controlling, but does a bigger or smaller number
actually affect your connection speed?

22 Dec 2005 3:56 PM

Chuck

On 22 Dec 2005 05:30:27 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

>thanks!
>
>I finally got my laptop up and running. Indeed it was the MTU setting.
>One last question. To get it working the mtu setting is now at 1200.
>What is the significants of that number on performance if any. I kinda
>understand what it is controlling, but does a bigger or smaller number
>actually affect your connection speed?

Gaaack. That's an abysmal number. The normal value is 1500, with normal drops
to 1492 (overhead 8 bytes) or 1454 (overhead 46 bytes). Your overhead is 300
bytes. Does this affect all websites, or just one or two?

This does not affect connection speed, but it does affect efficiency. Most
folks fetch web sites in chunks of 1500 bytes; you are fetching them in chunks
of 1200. That's a performance hit of 8% for all web activity.

Congrats on sticking with it that long. A lot of folks with your problem would
have thrown in the towel long before then.

--
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.

23 Dec 2005 7:39 PM

kebabDylan

do you have any idea why it would all of a sudden have to be reduced?
Is there something on the host machine (after cisco did its thing) that
is causing it?

23 Dec 2005 10:03 PM

Chuck

On 23 Dec 2005 11:39:36 -0800, kebabDy***@gmail.com wrote:

>do you have any idea why it would all of a sudden have to be reduced?
>Is there something on the host machine (after cisco did its thing) that
>is causing it?

Anytime you go thru a "host" (i.e., any network device which actively
participates in your network connection), there's always the possibility that
encapsulation may take effect. Encapsulation almost always creates an overhead.
Two known network setups, which frequently lead to your problem, are ICS and
PPPoE. See the articles linked from my article.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/internet-connectivity-problems-caused.html

The problem could also be caused by any one network between you and the problem
web server(s). Do you notice the problem on one web site, or multiple web
sites? Remember the Internet is one huge web (aka the "Web"); changes in any
one network, if your communications use it enough, can contribute to your
problem.

--
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.