Prevent\Detect Dual Homing

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by happy.ppp@gmail.com, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Is there a script to tweak the registry key that we can used to
    detected if wireless and wired NIC has been enabled simultaneously.
    Under this condition, the wireless NIC shall be disabled.

    Thanks.
    , Aug 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Merv Guest

    wrote:
    > Is there a script to tweak the registry key that we can used to
    > detected if wireless and wired NIC has been enabled simultaneously.
    > Under this condition, the wireless NIC shall be disabled.



    f it is Windows XP, it should happen automatically.

    see

    http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/24163/24163.html
    Merv, Aug 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Merv Guest

    If not Windows XP, set the interface route metrics so that the wired
    interface has a lower metric
    Merv, Aug 21, 2006
    #3
  4. happy.ppp Guest

    You does this by using route metric. However, for directly connected
    subnet of wireless NIC, you shall goes via the wireless NIC instead of
    the wired NIC. We want everything to goes thru the wired NIC and
    disable the wireless NIC in total.


    Merv wrote:

    > If not Windows XP, set the interface route metrics so that the wired
    > interface has a lower metric
    happy.ppp, Aug 22, 2006
    #4
  5. happy.ppp Guest

    Do anyone know of any script that tweak the registry to disable the
    wireless NIC when both the wired and wireless NIC is detected.

    Pls advise and thanks.


    happy.ppp wrote:
    > You does this by using route metric. However, for directly connected
    > subnet of wireless NIC, you shall goes via the wireless NIC instead of
    > the wired NIC. We want everything to goes thru the wired NIC and
    > disable the wireless NIC in total.
    >
    >
    > Merv wrote:
    >
    > > If not Windows XP, set the interface route metrics so that the wired
    > > interface has a lower metric
    happy.ppp, Aug 23, 2006
    #5
  6. happy.ppp Guest

    It is possible to bridge wireless and wired NIC in XP. Thus, this is
    why we want a script that disable the wireless NIC and left the wired
    NIC active.

    Any out there can help. Thanks

    happy.ppp wrote:
    > Do anyone know of any script that tweak the registry to disable the
    > wireless NIC when both the wired and wireless NIC is detected.
    >
    > Pls advise and thanks.
    >
    >
    > happy.ppp wrote:
    > > You does this by using route metric. However, for directly connected
    > > subnet of wireless NIC, you shall goes via the wireless NIC instead of
    > > the wired NIC. We want everything to goes thru the wired NIC and
    > > disable the wireless NIC in total.
    > >
    > >
    > > Merv wrote:
    > >
    > > > If not Windows XP, set the interface route metrics so that the wired
    > > > interface has a lower metric
    happy.ppp, Aug 25, 2006
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >Is there a script to tweak the registry key that we can used to
    >detected if wireless and wired NIC has been enabled simultaneously.
    >Under this condition, the wireless NIC shall be disabled.


    "registry key" is fairly specific to Microsoft Windows. The only
    thing that Windows has to do with Cisco is that some Cisco
    software products run on Windows.

    I would suggest that you should ask in a Windows specific newsgroup.
    Most people are here for networking infrastructure, not host-level
    networking; someone here might -happen- to know the answer, but
    it isn't what we specialize in.

    Another newsgroup where you might be able to get an answer is
    comp.security.misc .
    Walter Roberson, Aug 25, 2006
    #7
  8. If you have Cisco switches, then turn on BPDU guard on the wired access
    ports. Then when the XP user configures bridging and turns on both wireless
    and wired adapters, the switch will shut down the port to the wired adapter.
    Not exactly what you're asking for, but it will at least thwart the
    bridging.

    Aaron

    ---

    ~ It is possible to bridge wireless and wired NIC in XP. Thus, this is
    ~ why we want a script that disable the wireless NIC and left the wired
    ~ NIC active.
    ~
    ~ Any out there can help. Thanks
    ~
    ~ happy.ppp wrote:
    ~ > Do anyone know of any script that tweak the registry to disable the
    ~ > wireless NIC when both the wired and wireless NIC is detected.
    ~ >
    ~ > Pls advise and thanks.
    ~ >
    ~ >
    ~ > happy.ppp wrote:
    ~ > > You does this by using route metric. However, for directly connected
    ~ > > subnet of wireless NIC, you shall goes via the wireless NIC instead of
    ~ > > the wired NIC. We want everything to goes thru the wired NIC and
    ~ > > disable the wireless NIC in total.
    ~ > >
    ~ > >
    ~ > > Merv wrote:
    ~ > >
    ~ > > > If not Windows XP, set the interface route metrics so that the wired
    ~ > > > interface has a lower metric
    Aaron Leonard, Aug 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Aaron Leonard wrote:
    > ~ It is possible to bridge wireless and wired NIC in XP. Thus, this is
    > ~ why we want a script that disable the wireless NIC and left the wired
    > ~ NIC active.
    > ~
    > ~ Any out there can help. Thanks
    > ~
    > ~ happy.ppp wrote:
    > ~ > Do anyone know of any script that tweak the registry to disable the
    > ~ > wireless NIC when both the wired and wireless NIC is detected.
    > ~ >
    > ~ > Pls advise and thanks.
    > ~ >
    > ~ >
    > ~ > happy.ppp wrote:
    > ~ > > You does this by using route metric. However, for directly connected
    > ~ > > subnet of wireless NIC, you shall goes via the wireless NIC instead of
    > ~ > > the wired NIC. We want everything to goes thru the wired NIC and
    > ~ > > disable the wireless NIC in total.
    > ~ > >
    > ~ > >
    > ~ > > Merv wrote:
    > ~ > >
    > ~ > > > If not Windows XP, set the interface route metrics so that the wired
    > ~ > > > interface has a lower metric
    > If you have Cisco switches, then turn on BPDU guard on the wired access
    > ports. Then when the XP user configures bridging and turns on both wireless
    > and wired adapters, the switch will shut down the port to the wired adapter.
    > Not exactly what you're asking for, but it will at least thwart the
    > bridging.
    >
    > Aaron


    Yes!!!

    This is the key.

    However, you do not need to rely on BPDU guard (I don't think)

    Aaron, why will the wired adaptor lose in this situation?

    You may be able to arrange the STP parameters
    to get the results that you want.

    In Spanning Tree Protocol the most important thing
    is the root path cost so by varying the interface costs
    you should be able to get what you want. One
    way or another.

    You will probably find that you have to turn off portfast
    which will result in additional delay when ports come up
    but with modern switches you will be able to tune the timers.

    Post the topology ascii art or a link to a diagram
    and maybe something can be suggested.
    , Aug 30, 2006
    #9
  10. Hansang Bae Guest

    wrote:
    [use of bpdu guard from Cisco]

    > Yes!!!
    > This is the key.
    > However, you do not need to rely on BPDU guard (I don't think)
    > Aaron, why will the wired adaptor lose in this situation?
    > You may be able to arrange the STP parameters
    > to get the results that you want.

    [snip]

    Because if you can tweak the parameters, so can other people. But they
    can't stop BPDUs so it would be safer.


    --

    hsb


    "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
    **************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
    Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not be able to
    reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
    ********************************************************************
    Hansang Bae, Aug 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    Hansang Bae wrote:
    > wrote:
    > [use of bpdu guard from Cisco]
    >
    > > Yes!!!
    > > This is the key.
    > > However, you do not need to rely on BPDU guard (I don't think)
    > > Aaron, why will the wired adaptor lose in this situation?
    > > You may be able to arrange the STP parameters
    > > to get the results that you want.

    > [snip]
    >
    > Because if you can tweak the parameters, so can other people. But they
    > can't stop BPDUs so it would be safer.
    >
    > hsb


    I was, perhaps incorrectly, thinking that the windows
    boxes would be STP transparent. I recall now that I have
    seen that they are. Clearly in principle someone could bring in
    additional components that were STP active and break the
    network however I am not certain that this is a major consideration
    for most networks. It is I agree a consideration for big
    corporates.

    Good to have you back by the way.
    , Aug 30, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    wrote:
    > Hansang Bae wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > > [use of bpdu guard from Cisco]
    > >
    > > > Yes!!!
    > > > This is the key.
    > > > However, you do not need to rely on BPDU guard (I don't think)
    > > > Aaron, why will the wired adaptor lose in this situation?
    > > > You may be able to arrange the STP parameters
    > > > to get the results that you want.

    > > [snip]
    > >
    > > Because if you can tweak the parameters, so can other people. But they
    > > can't stop BPDUs so it would be safer.
    > >
    > > hsb

    >
    > I was, perhaps incorrectly, thinking that the windows
    > boxes would be STP transparent. I recall now that I have
    > seen that they are. Clearly in principle someone could bring in
    > additional components that were STP active and break the
    > network however I am not certain that this is a major consideration
    > for most networks. It is I agree a consideration for big
    > corporates.
    >
    > Good to have you back by the way.


    Further issue is that I don't think that switches in
    general are designed to have active STP on every port.

    Too much work to do.

    Seemed like fine idea for a while.
    , Aug 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Hansang Bae Guest

    wrote:
    > I was, perhaps incorrectly, thinking that the windows
    > boxes would be STP transparent. I recall now that I have
    > seen that they are. Clearly in principle someone could bring in
    > additional components that were STP active and break the
    > network however I am not certain that this is a major consideration
    > for most networks. It is I agree a consideration for big
    > corporates.
    >
    > Good to have you back by the way.



    Thanks. I think this is a big gaping hole for a lot companies.
    NAC-like functionality is a good thing in concept. We'll see how it
    pans out - operationaly speaking.


    --

    hsb


    "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
    **************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
    Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not be able to
    reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
    ********************************************************************
    Hansang Bae, Aug 31, 2006
    #13
    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. Chris Harvey
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,467
    Vincent C Jones
    Jan 12, 2004
  2. happy.ppp

    Prevent\Detect Dual Homing

    happy.ppp, Aug 27, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    642
    happy.ppp
    Aug 28, 2006
  3. alt.testing@{g}mail.com

    multi homing

    alt.testing@{g}mail.com, Aug 21, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    417
    alt.testing@{g}mail.com
    Aug 21, 2007
  4. Hari

    Multi homing

    Hari, Feb 20, 2008, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
  5. The Doctor

    BGP , ASNs and Multi-homing

    The Doctor, Aug 26, 2010, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    463
    Alael
    Aug 26, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page