TCP/IP Network help

[alewis]

Is your PC running ICS or some other form of Internet conenction sharing?

[alewis]

I have a horrible suspicion that ICS sharing is broken in XP, at least with wireless. It attempts to create a layer two bridge, to avoid routing. However, for some odd reason it then decides that the 2nd (connected to router/internet) NIC should have a seperate IP address, and that this IP adress should be the default gateway. And more often than not, it decides to assign the same IP address as the existing router....

This is plain daft. TBH, better to bite the bullet and use a wired connection from Amiga to router. Tried, tested, and works.

[alewis]

Neither will the PC... TBH, I'd then give everything an address in the 192.168.0.x range, to keep things simple (and if one is new to IP addressing, be able to follow many examples found on the net, without worrying about differences ebtween examples that use 192.168.0.x and ones own network using 192.168.1.x, but thats mho).

motorollin wrote:
The problem is that you have two interfaces on your PC and expecting it to act as a router, but both interfaces have IP addresses in the same IP range (192.168.0.x). Also, you have given your Amiga a gateway in the 192.168.1.x range, but this address is not in the range of its next hop on the network. The way you should configure it is to have 192.168.1.x on one side of the network (Amiga and Ethernet adapter on the PC) and 192.168.2.x on the other side (Router/Wifi/Wifi adapter on the PC). Then you have to configure the PC to route between 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x, and tell your router that if it wants to find the 192.168.1.x network it has to go through the IP address you give to the Wifi adapter on the PC.

Alternatively, just bridge the Ethernet and Wifi connections on the PC. It will then alocate one IP address to both, and automatically take care of the routing for you.moto

Thats the theory, but ICS for some reason doesnt always do this, and often will assign the same IP address to the bridged connection as already exists on the router interface... as I said, I'm sure it's broken. And thats before one runs into the permissions issue of access the properties page...!