From: "Lewis G Rosenthal" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (account lgrosenthal HELO [192.168.100.11]) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTPA id 191954 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:03:35 -0400 Message-ID: <44A059B3.3000305@2rosenthals.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:03:31 -0400 Organization: Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060531 MultiZilla/1.8.2.0i SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: xwlan 2.14 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/26/06 02:32 pm, Christian Langanke thus wrote : > Michael Warmuth wrote: > I am sorry, but having two interfaces configured to the same subnet > is wrong. If you mean that you disable one of either interface, this > would be ok. But it is definitely not sufficient to just "not use" one > of either interface. The IP stack will not care for if you don't use > one of two interfaces - exactly one of two will just always win and > the other will never be used. I would have to agree, except in the case of adapters which are specifically configured for teaming (load balancing or failover support). > Note that NetBEUI is currently ot handled by XWLAN, so you would have > to do that with the script feature. > > I would be interested though to have an exeperienced user telling me > what else could be required/make sense for better NetBEUI support. > > If this is not too much in one piece, I could think of integrating > some support for it. IPX isn't handled by XWLAN, either... ;-) Seriously, though, I have no problems switching between interfaces with IPX, but that's really because the NetWare client will use a second NIC on the same network for failover support *ONLY* so having two NICs on the same IPX network is a non-issue. I'm sure there may be some resources wasted while one is disconnected, but the overhead is minimal. At least I don't see any connection problems. >> Off course this does take a longer time (two times waiting for the DHCP >> lease), but the result is that it does actually work. >> > For testing I implemented something different, at least for the > default route. If the WLAN interfaces is to be kept, the default route > is saved, deleted, then LAN is deleted, then default route is reset - > et voila: the defalt route is attached to the WLAN interface. I intend > to cache _all_ routes for the cabled interface and restore them all on > the correct interface, so network and hostroutes would also be handled > properly. The only drawback is that I cannot do that for the way back > (wireless to cabled). Here the setup script is to setup all routes > properly again. This sounds quite elegant, Christian. Good thinking. >> P.S. All the time I spent to get XWLAN working correctly was more or >> less useless as my mini-PCI "IBM High Rate ..." still chocks up when >> sending more than just a few KB (XWLAN shows "No Card"). But this is a >> driver problem... >> > I am sorry to hear that. Did you post a request to netlabs.org on this ? > You mean that the OS/2 Wireless Users List isn;t the official support site for XWLAN? :-) (Just kidding everyone; remember that the official support list for XWLAN is http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.netlabs.wlan.general/ .) Christian, you are kind enough to maintain a presence here, and I want to thank you for that. -- Lewis ------------------------------------------------------------ Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA, CLP, CLE Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC Accountants / Network Consultants New York / Northern Virginia www.2rosenthals.com eComStation Consultants www.ecomstation.com Novell Users International www.novell.com/linux/truth Need a managed Wi-Fi hotspot? www.hautspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------