Connecting to two networks at same time.

Discussion in 'Wireless Networking' started by Mike Hyndman, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    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, Oct 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I don't see why not. We have desktops with two NIC cards that connect to
    different networks.

    MD



    "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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?TWFkRG9n?=, Oct 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    "MadDog" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I don't see why not. We have desktops with two NIC cards that connect to
    > different networks.
    >

    MD,

    That's what I thought;)
    but it's convincing the "owner" of the laptop.
    Many thnks
    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, Oct 18, 2006
    #3
  4. 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).

    "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\)., Oct 18, 2006
    #4
  5. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 >
    > wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    >> 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, Oct 18, 2006
    #5
  6. Hi
    Yeah, moving files would work at the same time.
    The name does not need to be the same.
    Jack (MVP-Networking).

    "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    wrote in message news:eh61tv$lth$1$...
    >
    > "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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 >
    >> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    >>> 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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\)., Oct 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Hi
    > Yeah, moving files would work at the same time.
    > The name does not need to be the same.
    > Jack (MVP-Networking).


    Jack,

    Many thanks

    Mike H
    >
    > "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    > wrote in message news:eh61tv$lth$1$...
    >>
    >> "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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 >
    >>> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    >>>> 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, Oct 18, 2006
    #7
  8. "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    > 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.
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 18, 2006
    #8
  9. "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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).
    >


    Eh?

    I had a wired network AND wireless and bridged them at the one computer. I
    could get through the network from any machine to any other and I could also
    get internet from any machine.

    So what doesn't work there?
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 18, 2006
    #9
  10. Mike Hyndman

    David Hettel Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:%23xGST%...
    >
    > "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    > wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    >> 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, Oct 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    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. ;)

    Regards

    Mike Hyndman
    --
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23xGST%...
    >>
    >> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    >> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    >>> 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, Oct 19, 2006
    #11
  12. Didn't sound like it to me but the answer is, nonetheless, correct. You CAN
    have both wired and wi-fi at once if you bridge the two on one computer
    somewhere. You cant retain IP addresses because it all gets handed out DHCP
    from the bridge but it does everything you would want - network between
    computers, get to internet and so on.

    "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23xGST%...
    >>
    >> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    >> wrote in message news:eh5e2c$2q0$1$...
    >>> 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.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 19, 2006
    #12
  13. "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$...
    >
    > "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 19, 2006
    #13
  14. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    "Diamontina Cocktail" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    > wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$...
    >>
    >> "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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.

    regards

    MH
    >
    Mike Hyndman, Oct 19, 2006
    #14
  15. "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$...
    >
    > "Diamontina Cocktail" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    >> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$...
    >>>
    >>> "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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.
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Mike Hyndman

    Mike Hyndman Guest

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Diamontina Cocktail" <>
    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 >
    > wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$...
    >>
    >> "Diamontina Cocktail" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    >>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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
    Mike Hyndman, Oct 20, 2006
    #16
  17. 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" <>
    > 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 >
    > > wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$...
    > >>
    > >> "Diamontina Cocktail" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >>>
    > >>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send >
    > >>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$...
    > >>>>
    > >>>> "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    > >>>> news:...
    > >>>>> 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
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?TGVv?=, Oct 27, 2006
    #17
  18. You'd be better asking for a GPO in the GPO newsgroup from Microsoft really.
    More knowledge on GPOs there.

    However, at a router, you can set up accepted connections via MAC. This
    doesn't stop bridging at the local computer. If the local computer used by
    those people is their own laptop, you can enforce a COMPANY policy saying it
    isn't allowed and knock them and anyone not officially approved off the
    network, forcing them to use approved and controlled computers only. If it
    is a company computer, that should be done in any case.

    What you are saying is happening is, in fact, a Human Resources dept issue
    and not so much a computer issue. They are known to do it. Do they really
    WANT to put the company at risk or do they want to keep their jobs?

    "Leo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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" <>
    >> 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 >
    >> > wrote in message news:eh8411$kqq$1$...
    >> >>
    >> >> "Diamontina Cocktail" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >>>
    >> >>> "Mike Hyndman" <tell me yours and I'll send
    >> >>> >
    >> >>> wrote in message news:eh7e81$qag$1$...
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> "David Hettel" <> wrote in message
    >> >>>> news:...
    >> >>>>> 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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 29, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Oliver Gunnell

    Can I run two networks in the same place

    Oliver Gunnell, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    517
  2. Brian
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,140
    Kevin Widner
    Jun 18, 2004
  3. Christoph Gartmann

    Routing between two IP networks on same LAN

    Christoph Gartmann, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    22,134
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 7, 2004
  4. [L.]
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    15,366
  5. apostolis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    969
    apostolis
    Jul 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page