"Mike Hyndman" wrote:

> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via LAN
> card  at the same time?
> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
> Wireless 10.74.***.***
> LAN       10.121.***.***
> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>
> Regards
> MH
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> "Mike Hyndman" wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via LAN
>> card  at the same time?
>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>
>> Regards
>> MH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

"Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via LAN
> card  at the same time?
> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
> Wireless 10.74.***.***
> LAN       10.121.***.***
> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>
> Regards
> MH
>
>
>
>

>
> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via LAN
>> card  at the same time?
>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>
>> Regards
>> MH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
wrote in message news:eh61tv$lth$1$830fa79f@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <J***@discussiongroup.com> wrote in message
> news:OzyPg4u8GHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>> The answer is yes, and partial No.
>> You can establish a connection and use it in certain ways, depending on
>> the application.
>> E.g. You can surf independently the Internet through the two connections
>> at the same time.
>> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>
> Thanks Jack,
>
> Each network has its own gateway, all the user hopes to do is move files
> between networks.
> Will the workgroups need to have the same name?
>
> Regards
> Mike H
>>
>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via
>>> LAN card  at the same time?
>>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> MH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> wrote in message news:eh61tv$lth$1$830fa79f@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <J***@discussiongroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:OzyPg4u8GHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi
>>> The answer is yes, and partial No.
>>> You can establish a connection and use it in certain ways, depending on
>>> the application.
>>> E.g. You can surf independently the Internet through the two connections
>>> at the same time.
>>> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>>
>> Thanks Jack,
>>
>> Each network has its own gateway, all the user hopes to do is move files
>> between networks.
>> Will the workgroups need to have the same name?
>>
>> Regards
>> Mike H
>>>
>>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>>> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via
>>>> LAN card  at the same time?
>>>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>>>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>>>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>>>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> MH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via LAN
> card  at the same time?
> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
> Wireless 10.74.***.***
> LAN       10.121.***.***
> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>
> Regards
> MH
>
>
>
>

"Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
news:%23xGST%23v8GHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via LAN
>> card  at the same time?
>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>
>> Regards
>> MH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yep you can. You BRIDGE the networks but you lose manual assign of IP
> numbers at that point. Been there and done it myself, before.
>
>

> David Hettel
>
> Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
> for everyone to see.  I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
> addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.
>
> Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
>
> DISCLAIMER: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights
>
>
> "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
> news:%23xGST%23v8GHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via
>>> LAN card  at the same time?
>>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> MH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yep you can. You BRIDGE the networks but you lose manual assign of IP
>> numbers at that point. Been there and done it myself, before.
>>
>>
>
>

"Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
> news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike wants to
>> retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two different
>> LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big LAN. In that
>> case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will become more difficult
>> however.
>
> David,
>
> Correct, the user needs (would like) to connect to the two networks with
> the one PC (laptop) purely for sharing files between the two.

"Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
news:uQ1ITs38GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike wants to
>>> retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two different
>>> LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big LAN. In that
>>> case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will become more
>>> difficult however.
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Correct, the user needs (would like) to connect to the two networks with
>> the one PC (laptop) purely for sharing files between the two.
>
> Are you saying that he wants to, at times, connect wi-fi to one network
> and then at others to the wired one but never both at the same time and
> share files by basically using the laptop like a USB drive? Easy really to
> keep those two apart but using a USB drive is much less hassle.
>
>> At the moment, he has a desktop PC hardwired through a hub to one network
>> (fixed IP addresses and "set in stone") and a laptop which he connects to
>> the second network, wirelessly, again the network using manual IP
>> addresses. He is using a USB pendrive to transfer files between the two
>> networks.
>> I have configured the laptop's  LAN to the same address range as the
>> desktop's but as of yet, not connected it to the hub as he is worried
>> that things could go "pear shaped" leading to data loss, equipment damage
>> and the end of civilisation as we know it. ;)
>
> Why is it fixed in stone at the wired one? He could connect wirelessly
> with the laptop and have that also connect wired to the wired network and
> apply a bridge at the laptop to the networks. If he didnt have to have
> "set in stone" manual IP then he could have all he wants easily. It would
> just be auto assigned IP.
>
> Failing that, you could have the two networks independent of each other on
> the laptop and a shared files folder be the go between.

>

"Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
> news:uQ1ITs38GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike wants
>>>> to retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two
>>>> different LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big
>>>> LAN. In that case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will become
>>>> more difficult however.
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Correct, the user needs (would like) to connect to the two networks with
>>> the one PC (laptop) purely for sharing files between the two.
>>
>> Are you saying that he wants to, at times, connect wi-fi to one network
>> and then at others to the wired one but never both at the same time and
>> share files by basically using the laptop like a USB drive? Easy really
>> to keep those two apart but using a USB drive is much less hassle.
>>
>>> At the moment, he has a desktop PC hardwired through a hub to one
>>> network (fixed IP addresses and "set in stone") and a laptop which he
>>> connects to the second network, wirelessly, again the network using
>>> manual IP addresses. He is using a USB pendrive to transfer files
>>> between the two networks.
>>> I have configured the laptop's  LAN to the same address range as the
>>> desktop's but as of yet, not connected it to the hub as he is worried
>>> that things could go "pear shaped" leading to data loss, equipment
>>> damage and the end of civilisation as we know it. ;)
>>
>> Why is it fixed in stone at the wired one? He could connect wirelessly
>> with the laptop and have that also connect wired to the wired network and
>> apply a bridge at the laptop to the networks. If he didnt have to have
>> "set in stone" manual IP then he could have all he wants easily. It would
>> just be auto assigned IP.
>>
>> Failing that, you could have the two networks independent of each other
>> on the laptop and a shared files folder be the go between.
>
> He has got similar now by using the USB pendrive surely.
>>
> The wired network consists of three pc's only with one acting as a file
> server, (the admin/office network, where all the money info is kept) all
> running WXPPro, there is nothing to act as a DHCP server.
> The second network (the handrags) consists of 18 hard wired PC's with
> wireless access points for laptop access.
> He would like to connect to both at the same time.
>

>
> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
>> news:uQ1ITs38GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike wants
>>>>> to retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two
>>>>> different LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big
>>>>> LAN. In that case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will
>>>>> become more difficult however.
>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Correct, the user needs (would like) to connect to the two networks
>>>> with the one PC (laptop) purely for sharing files between the two.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that he wants to, at times, connect wi-fi to one network
>>> and then at others to the wired one but never both at the same time and
>>> share files by basically using the laptop like a USB drive? Easy really
>>> to keep those two apart but using a USB drive is much less hassle.
>>>
>>>> At the moment, he has a desktop PC hardwired through a hub to one
>>>> network (fixed IP addresses and "set in stone") and a laptop which he
>>>> connects to the second network, wirelessly, again the network using
>>>> manual IP addresses. He is using a USB pendrive to transfer files
>>>> between the two networks.
>>>> I have configured the laptop's  LAN to the same address range as the
>>>> desktop's but as of yet, not connected it to the hub as he is worried
>>>> that things could go "pear shaped" leading to data loss, equipment
>>>> damage and the end of civilisation as we know it. ;)
>>>
>>> Why is it fixed in stone at the wired one? He could connect wirelessly
>>> with the laptop and have that also connect wired to the wired network
>>> and apply a bridge at the laptop to the networks. If he didnt have to
>>> have "set in stone" manual IP then he could have all he wants easily. It
>>> would just be auto assigned IP.
>>>
>>> Failing that, you could have the two networks independent of each other
>>> on the laptop and a shared files folder be the go between.
>>
>> He has got similar now by using the USB pendrive surely.
>>>
>> The wired network consists of three pc's only with one acting as a file
>> server, (the admin/office network, where all the money info is kept) all
>> running WXPPro, there is nothing to act as a DHCP server.
>> The second network (the handrags) consists of 18 hard wired PC's with
>> wireless access points for laptop access.
>> He would like to connect to both at the same time.
>>
>
> Well, as I said you can bridge at the one PC but the easiest thing
> assuming the wired PCs are capable of reaching the other network is to put
> in a wireless smart bridge capable router for the 3 wired ones if you are
> trying to segregate access and limit access to that network to those 3
> that you want to have it then have it also access the other wi-fi router.
>
> Personally, your place has made it hard. I would just have had, assuming
> they CANT get wi-fi access reliably, a repeater somewhere in the middle
> and a wi-fi router at each end. The end where the secret stuff is that 3
> machines ONLY can get on accepts no incoming connections that weren't
> initiated at one of those 3 machines. Smart bridging costs more but it
> depends what you are doing as to whether it is worth it or not. You could
> also have enforced policy restrictions to keep people who aren't hackers
> out of those 3 machines.
>
> One thing that I do for companies such as medical practices and tax agents
> when they want wi-fi is to set up wi-fi with the best encryption possible
> THEN set up access lists. So, the wireless router will accept no incoming
> connection from a wi-fi device of a different MAC number. I know you can
> EASILY spoof a MAC but most people do NOT know how to do it so it is a
> reasonable addition to security. So, you can set up MAC access to the
> router with those 3 machines so as to allow them access to it and also get
> the MAC address of the router down the other end of the office where all
> the other machines are grouped and allow IT access to the router where the
> other 3 are. However, the individual wi-fi devices on each computer cant
> get down to the router where the other 3 are as they are rejected there.
> You set up the router down the end with the 3 to NOT give out IP addresses
> and to relay DHCP to the other router and then all are on the same
> network.
>
> It wouldn't be hard to do. No doubt some "IT guy" in your area could do it
> in an hour if all the parts are on hand.
>
> While I personally believe that, with XP, manual IP assign is better
> simply because the computer gets on to the network and active a lot sooner
> than auto assign, in your case, I think the two wi-fi routers set as I
> explained above are better. You overcome every problem that way.

"Mike Hyndman" wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Connecting to two networks at same time.
>
>
> >
> > "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> > wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uQ1ITs38GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>
> >>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
> >>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>>>
> >>>> "David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike wants
> >>>>> to retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two
> >>>>> different LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big
> >>>>> LAN. In that case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will
> >>>>> become more difficult however.
> >>>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct, the user needs (would like) to connect to the two networks
> >>>> with the one PC (laptop) purely for sharing files between the two.
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying that he wants to, at times, connect wi-fi to one network
> >>> and then at others to the wired one but never both at the same time and
> >>> share files by basically using the laptop like a USB drive? Easy really
> >>> to keep those two apart but using a USB drive is much less hassle.
> >>>
> >>>> At the moment, he has a desktop PC hardwired through a hub to one
> >>>> network (fixed IP addresses and "set in stone") and a laptop which he
> >>>> connects to the second network, wirelessly, again the network using
> >>>> manual IP addresses. He is using a USB pendrive to transfer files
> >>>> between the two networks.
> >>>> I have configured the laptop's  LAN to the same address range as the
> >>>> desktop's but as of yet, not connected it to the hub as he is worried
> >>>> that things could go "pear shaped" leading to data loss, equipment
> >>>> damage and the end of civilisation as we know it. ;)
> >>>
> >>> Why is it fixed in stone at the wired one? He could connect wirelessly
> >>> with the laptop and have that also connect wired to the wired network
> >>> and apply a bridge at the laptop to the networks. If he didnt have to
> >>> have "set in stone" manual IP then he could have all he wants easily. It
> >>> would just be auto assigned IP.
> >>>
> >>> Failing that, you could have the two networks independent of each other
> >>> on the laptop and a shared files folder be the go between.
> >>
> >> He has got similar now by using the USB pendrive surely.
> >>>
> >> The wired network consists of three pc's only with one acting as a file
> >> server, (the admin/office network, where all the money info is kept) all
> >> running WXPPro, there is nothing to act as a DHCP server.
> >> The second network (the handrags) consists of 18 hard wired PC's with
> >> wireless access points for laptop access.
> >> He would like to connect to both at the same time.
> >>
> >
> > Well, as I said you can bridge at the one PC but the easiest thing
> > assuming the wired PCs are capable of reaching the other network is to put
> > in a wireless smart bridge capable router for the 3 wired ones if you are
> > trying to segregate access and limit access to that network to those 3
> > that you want to have it then have it also access the other wi-fi router.
> >
> > Personally, your place has made it hard. I would just have had, assuming
> > they CANT get wi-fi access reliably, a repeater somewhere in the middle
> > and a wi-fi router at each end. The end where the secret stuff is that 3
> > machines ONLY can get on accepts no incoming connections that weren't
> > initiated at one of those 3 machines. Smart bridging costs more but it
> > depends what you are doing as to whether it is worth it or not. You could
> > also have enforced policy restrictions to keep people who aren't hackers
> > out of those 3 machines.
> >
> > One thing that I do for companies such as medical practices and tax agents
> > when they want wi-fi is to set up wi-fi with the best encryption possible
> > THEN set up access lists. So, the wireless router will accept no incoming
> > connection from a wi-fi device of a different MAC number. I know you can
> > EASILY spoof a MAC but most people do NOT know how to do it so it is a
> > reasonable addition to security. So, you can set up MAC access to the
> > router with those 3 machines so as to allow them access to it and also get
> > the MAC address of the router down the other end of the office where all
> > the other machines are grouped and allow IT access to the router where the
> > other 3 are. However, the individual wi-fi devices on each computer cant
> > get down to the router where the other 3 are as they are rejected there.
> > You set up the router down the end with the 3 to NOT give out IP addresses
> > and to relay DHCP to the other router and then all are on the same
> > network.
> >
> > It wouldn't be hard to do. No doubt some "IT guy" in your area could do it
> > in an hour if all the parts are on hand.
> >
> > While I personally believe that, with XP, manual IP assign is better
> > simply because the computer gets on to the network and active a lot sooner
> > than auto assign, in your case, I think the two wi-fi routers set as I
> > explained above are better. You overcome every problem that way.
>
> D
> Many thanks for a most informative  reply.
> It is also a matter af cost, he already has a a number of spare connections
> on the hub his "wired" PC is connected to and his laptop has wifi
> capability. The only "expense" involved would be the cost of the patch cable
> between the laptop and the hub. (I think he can afford that ;)) I haven't
> been able to try it out as of yet as he has been away most of the week.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike H
>
>
>

"Leo" <L**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FD808117-7CE5-476A-BAF4-82BCE9DEEC1A@microsoft.com...
>
> This is interesting to me because I'm trying to stop this behavior. We
> have
> several laptop users who notoriously bridge our network and the Internet.
> Bit
> of a security issue with this. Does anyone know of an GPO or other methods
> to
> limit the adapter or network connections to one at a time?
>
>
>
> "Mike Hyndman" wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com>
>> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: Connecting to two networks at same time.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>> > wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:uQ1ITs38GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send
>> >>> m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>> >>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >>>>> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike
>> >>>>> wants
>> >>>>> to retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two
>> >>>>> different LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big
>> >>>>> LAN. In that case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will
>> >>>>> become more difficult however.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> David,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Correct, the user needs (would like) to connect to the two networks
>> >>>> with the one PC (laptop) purely for sharing files between the two.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you saying that he wants to, at times, connect wi-fi to one
>> >>> network
>> >>> and then at others to the wired one but never both at the same time
>> >>> and
>> >>> share files by basically using the laptop like a USB drive? Easy
>> >>> really
>> >>> to keep those two apart but using a USB drive is much less hassle.
>> >>>
>> >>>> At the moment, he has a desktop PC hardwired through a hub to one
>> >>>> network (fixed IP addresses and "set in stone") and a laptop which
>> >>>> he
>> >>>> connects to the second network, wirelessly, again the network using
>> >>>> manual IP addresses. He is using a USB pendrive to transfer files
>> >>>> between the two networks.
>> >>>> I have configured the laptop's  LAN to the same address range as the
>> >>>> desktop's but as of yet, not connected it to the hub as he is
>> >>>> worried
>> >>>> that things could go "pear shaped" leading to data loss, equipment
>> >>>> damage and the end of civilisation as we know it. ;)
>> >>>
>> >>> Why is it fixed in stone at the wired one? He could connect
>> >>> wirelessly
>> >>> with the laptop and have that also connect wired to the wired network
>> >>> and apply a bridge at the laptop to the networks. If he didnt have to
>> >>> have "set in stone" manual IP then he could have all he wants easily.
>> >>> It
>> >>> would just be auto assigned IP.
>> >>>
>> >>> Failing that, you could have the two networks independent of each
>> >>> other
>> >>> on the laptop and a shared files folder be the go between.
>> >>
>> >> He has got similar now by using the USB pendrive surely.
>> >>>
>> >> The wired network consists of three pc's only with one acting as a
>> >> file
>> >> server, (the admin/office network, where all the money info is kept)
>> >> all
>> >> running WXPPro, there is nothing to act as a DHCP server.
>> >> The second network (the handrags) consists of 18 hard wired PC's with
>> >> wireless access points for laptop access.
>> >> He would like to connect to both at the same time.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, as I said you can bridge at the one PC but the easiest thing
>> > assuming the wired PCs are capable of reaching the other network is to
>> > put
>> > in a wireless smart bridge capable router for the 3 wired ones if you
>> > are
>> > trying to segregate access and limit access to that network to those 3
>> > that you want to have it then have it also access the other wi-fi
>> > router.
>> >
>> > Personally, your place has made it hard. I would just have had,
>> > assuming
>> > they CANT get wi-fi access reliably, a repeater somewhere in the middle
>> > and a wi-fi router at each end. The end where the secret stuff is that
>> > 3
>> > machines ONLY can get on accepts no incoming connections that weren't
>> > initiated at one of those 3 machines. Smart bridging costs more but it
>> > depends what you are doing as to whether it is worth it or not. You
>> > could
>> > also have enforced policy restrictions to keep people who aren't
>> > hackers
>> > out of those 3 machines.
>> >
>> > One thing that I do for companies such as medical practices and tax
>> > agents
>> > when they want wi-fi is to set up wi-fi with the best encryption
>> > possible
>> > THEN set up access lists. So, the wireless router will accept no
>> > incoming
>> > connection from a wi-fi device of a different MAC number. I know you
>> > can
>> > EASILY spoof a MAC but most people do NOT know how to do it so it is a
>> > reasonable addition to security. So, you can set up MAC access to the
>> > router with those 3 machines so as to allow them access to it and also
>> > get
>> > the MAC address of the router down the other end of the office where
>> > all
>> > the other machines are grouped and allow IT access to the router where
>> > the
>> > other 3 are. However, the individual wi-fi devices on each computer
>> > cant
>> > get down to the router where the other 3 are as they are rejected
>> > there.
>> > You set up the router down the end with the 3 to NOT give out IP
>> > addresses
>> > and to relay DHCP to the other router and then all are on the same
>> > network.
>> >
>> > It wouldn't be hard to do. No doubt some "IT guy" in your area could do
>> > it
>> > in an hour if all the parts are on hand.
>> >
>> > While I personally believe that, with XP, manual IP assign is better
>> > simply because the computer gets on to the network and active a lot
>> > sooner
>> > than auto assign, in your case, I think the two wi-fi routers set as I
>> > explained above are better. You overcome every problem that way.
>>
>> D
>> Many thanks for a most informative  reply.
>> It is also a matter af cost, he already has a a number of spare
>> connections
>> on the hub his "wired" PC is connected to and his laptop has wifi
>> capability. The only "expense" involved would be the cost of the patch
>> cable
>> between the laptop and the hub. (I think he can afford that ;)) I haven't
>> been able to try it out as of yet as he has been away most of the week.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike H
>>
>>
>>

"David Hettel" <No***@NoWhere.net> wrote in message
news:e7t5bTw8GHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am reading this like Jack is, and Mike wants to
> retain the two IP address ranges. He actually wants/needs two different
> LANs he does not simply wish to combine them into one big LAN. In that
> case Jack is correct, it will work, somethings will become more difficult
> however.
>
> --
> David Hettel
>
> Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
> for everyone to see.  I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
> addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.
>
> Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
>
> DISCLAIMER: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights
>
>
> "Diamontina Cocktail" <l**@australia.com> wrote in message
> news:%23xGST%23v8GHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send m***@suspisiousbastard.com>
>> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Is it possible to connect to two networks, one wirelessly and one via
>>> LAN card  at the same time?
>>> The IP addresses on both connection methods are assigned manually.
>>> Wireless 10.74.***.***
>>> LAN       10.121.***.***
>>> Subnets same 255.255.255.0
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> MH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yep you can. You BRIDGE the networks but you lose manual assign of IP
>> numbers at that point. Been there and done it myself, before.
>>
>>
>
>