Jump to content

Problem with network connections


Francesco

Recommended Posts

Hello I have a problem setting up connection settings on vista.

I have 2 ethernet cards, one connected to my 360, another one connected to my router. I connect to internet using a PPPoe connection that on vista is supposed to be configured as a Public Network, right? Well if I configure it as a public network I can't manage to enable file and media sharing. If I configure my internet PPPoe connection as a private network instead vista will have open ports on internet (the firewall is turned off).

Any idea?

BTW my router works only with PPPoe (pratically just like an adsl ethernet modem).

Edited by Francesco
Link to comment
Share on other sites


did you bridge the connections?

Briefly;

One difference between the 'public' network and the 'private' network in Vista is one is discoverable and the other itsn't (not entirely). You can read the help for more info. It doesn't determine what you can and can not share, it depends on how your set up however. If you were on a LAN then it would be correct for Vista to expose ports on a private connection because it expects those to be controlled some place else in the LAN and sees your machine as the client and not the server, so....If you establish a private network on the Vista client and your not on a LAN then it will open ports like its supposed to for a LAN...and this brings us back to the firewall - even though you can turn it off in a private network you should have something in your router that does the firewall thing for you.

What is sounds like is that you may need to configure the connections as a home connection and then bridge your two seperate connections (your two NIC's), then decide what you want to share.

Hello I have a problem setting up connection settings on vista.

I have 2 ethernet cards, one connected to my 360, another one connected to my router. I connect to internet using a PPPoe connection that on vista is supposed to be configured as a Public Network, right? Well if I configure it as a public network I can't manage to enable file and media sharing. If I configure my internet PPPoe connection as a private network instead vista will have open ports on internet (the firewall is turned off).

Any idea?

BTW my router works only with PPPoe (pratically just like an adsl ethernet modem).

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been a fan of finding the right way of configuring something wrong...

(So basically) You can't enable filesharing on you internet connection ... Christ I Hope Not!

Dual NIC configurations are great If (on a server...) you need them, on a typical workstation is more a case of complexity for the sake of itself.

You need (and frankly must have) a single device that draws a "line in the sand" between Public and Private networks. If your ISP stuck you with one of those PPPoE bridges that need to "dial" the connection, get a second router that will handle the "dial-in" for you and then NAT between the Public (internet) & Private (Your comp & 360) networks. Any of the Cable/ADSL routers sold these days (I'm partial to Linksys) can do this for you and run about $50.

This configuration will allow Vista to "relax" due to there being a Clearly Defined private network and simplify any file sharing config you need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wait, I don't want to enable filesharing on internet. Creating a bridge between the connection is nosense because both the connections are configured as private networks. Also I actually have vmware installed so even those virtual network connections should be bridged too and that's not a very good idea.

The only problem I have is that the internet connection, according to the windows help, should be configured as a public connection (or the firewall would be disabled).

Pratically it looks like vista supports "local connections", "local and internet connections" but no "internet connections".

I would have had the same problem if I was connecting using my old 56k: is there any way to fix this without buying a real router (I can't change the one I have since it's needed for IPTV)?

Edited by Francesco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't be changing the router, Just putting one between your "network" and the ISP's PPPoE bridge.

The catch to PPPoE is that it will assign a Public (e.g. routable) IP address to local machine which puts Vista in Paranoid Psychotic Mode. The 2nd router will handle the PPPoE "Dial-in" separating the Public IP issue from the Vista box.

Once "Safely behind" the NAT firewall and using a Private (e.g. non-Routable IP Address) the Vista box will come out of it shell and allow you to share files.

Any other configuration is a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't be changing the router, Just putting one between your "network" and the ISP's PPPoE bridge.

The catch to PPPoE is that it will assign a Public (e.g. routable) IP address to local machine which puts Vista in Paranoid Psychotic Mode. The 2nd router will handle the PPPoE "Dial-in" separating the Public IP issue from the Vista box.

Once "Safely behind" the NAT firewall and using a Private (e.g. non-Routable IP Address) the Vista box will come out of it shell and allow you to share files.

Any other configuration is a recipe for disaster.

So there's no other way other than using a 2° router? Is this a vista bug or what? I can't believe it supports "local only", "local and internet" but not "internet only" connections.

I don't want to use a 2° router because the router wouldn't solve anything. Using another router will still mean that I'll have to open all the ports by hand because if I set DMZ all of the ports open in the LAN will be visible on internet.

In the past I had a situation like that, with router+ port forwarding but I use my pc as a web server on internet and using it behind NAT always messed things up: often connections were dropped and things like that. Also that would mean to say goodbye to FTP passive mode.

Edited by Francesco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to use a 2° router because the router wouldn't solve anything. Using another router will still mean that I'll have to open all the ports by hand because if I set DMZ all of the ports open in the LAN will be visible on internet.
:blink: ...So it's too much of a hassle to forward two ports for web & ftp services?!? Granted I'm not sure exactly what the IPTV thing you're referring to is but I seriously doubt it requires enough ports open to warrant running it in a DMZ (unless you're hosting the **** thing).

Running in a DMZ is only for a completely fortified box that has no non-public services running on that interface (e.g. there is no point in blocking ports that aren't open).

In the past I had a situation like that, with router+ port forwarding but I use my pc as a web server on internet and using it behind NAT always messed things up: often connections were dropped and things like that. Also that would mean to say goodbye to FTP passive mode.

Passive Mode FTP - Client sets transfer port.

Active Mode FTP - Server sets transfer port, and gives it to client on port 20.

The only way to blow Passive Mode FTP with NAT is to (Assume your running Active and open/forward port 20). Either that or a completely botched dual NIC config has completely borked the routing table to where the machine can't find its own a** let alone decide which version of "out" to send a packet to.

The IIS FTP is and always has been a Passive FTP Server, I've been running one for years, and doing it behind a NAT firewall. My typical transfers are 100-700MB and stability has never been an issue. I also run web, email, & remote access services (on various machines) behind the same NAT router.

It is possible you had a bad router ... but that is not the OS's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to use a 2° router because the router wouldn't solve anything. Using another router will still mean that I'll have to open all the ports by hand because if I set DMZ all of the ports open in the LAN will be visible on internet.

:blink: ...So it's too much of a hassle to forward two ports for web & ftp services?!?

I don't want to forward anything I want my pc directly connected to the internet with firewall.

XP leaves all the sharing services turned on, it's up to the firewall to prevent people accessing them from firewalled interfaces (for example the interface connected to the internet).

On Vista instead if I add even a single public (firewalled) network connection then vista would turn off ALL sharings on all the interfaces, not only the one set to public connection!

I don't know who the heck designed vista networking but this is completely screwed up. They pretend everybody to use routers and they don't let people override their network autosensing stuff.

I see no sense in vista turning all the file sharing services off just because there's a "public network connection" present. Nobody would be able to access those sharing services from the firewalled interfaces so there wouldn't be security risks in keeping those services turned on.

Granted I'm not sure exactly what the IPTV thing you're referring to is but I seriously doubt it requires enough ports open to warrant running it in a DMZ (unless you're hosting the **** thing).

Running in a DMZ is only for a completely fortified box that has no non-public services running on that interface (e.g. there is no point in blocking ports that aren't open).

The IPTV is a decoder that connects directly to my router and I can't get another router because the decoder works only with the router my telco company gave me.

In the past I had a situation like that, with router+ port forwarding but I use my pc as a web server on internet and using it behind NAT always messed things up: often connections were dropped and things like that. Also that would mean to say goodbye to FTP passive mode.

Passive Mode FTP - Client sets transfer port.

Active Mode FTP - Server sets transfer port, and gives it to client on port 20.

The only way to blow Passive Mode FTP with NAT is to (Assume your running Active and open/forward port 20). Either that or a completely botched dual NIC config has completely borked the routing table to where the machine can't find its own a** let alone decide which version of "out" to send a packet to.

The IIS FTP is and always has been a Passive FTP Server, I've been running one for years, and doing it behind a NAT firewall. My typical transfers are 100-700MB and stability has never been an issue. I also run web, email, & remote access services (on various machines) behind the same NAT router.

I was referring to FTP client transfers: I would have to use a client that lets me chose the port range. Also I would have the same problem with mIRC and other applications that open random ports.

I just want my pc directly connected to internet without vista disabling all the file sharing on all interfaces just because I have a "public network connection" active. Is that asking too much?

It is possible you had a bad router ... but that is not the OS's fault.

Almost surely it was a bad router but I got sick of that problem and I don't want to use again 2 routers to connect to the internet.

Edited by Francesco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...