System Admin

David Crow13-Apr-06 4:16

13-Apr-06 4:16

I'm no network engineer by any means so my suggestion is a most inefficient one. How about looping through all the IP addresses (256⁴) until you find the one that responds?

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain

"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb

KellyR13-Apr-06 4:23

KellyR

13-Apr-06 4:23

Guess that's what I'm going to end up having to do, I feel like there should be an easier way though. Oh well, thanks.

Kelly Ryan

Dave Kreskowiak13-Apr-06 4:30

Dave Kreskowiak

13-Apr-06 4:30

There is nothign that will tell you want the IP address is. There's no way to communicate with something that you don't already have the address for. You'll have to get the documentation on the device or someone will have to tell you what it is.

Or, you could, like the other poster said, ping every IP address until you find the one that responds. This could a VERY VERY VERY LONG time. But, you can narrow this down by trying only the private address ranges to start with. Which are:

192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255   (about 65,534 addresses)
 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255    (about 1.04 million addresses)
   10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255    (about 16.7 million addresses)

Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic

Chris Meech13-Apr-06 6:50

Chris Meech

13-Apr-06 6:50

For the network of two computers, your's and the military hardware, how are the IP addresses assigned? For instance, if your IP is DHCP assigned, then it's likely that the other hardware has a similarly assigned IP. On the other hand if your IP is static, someone must have assigned it to your PC and again it's likely that the other hardware has been assigned in a similar fashion. I'm not answering your question, but maybe it will give you an idea of other things to look at for your solution.

Chris Meech

I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]

When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon]

GOOD DAY FOR: Moonlighting, as porn star Savanna Samson has launched her own wine label. Her Sogno Uno, an Italian red, received an "outstanding" 90 to 91 score from influential wine critic Robert Parker. "I wanted to do something my parents could be proud of," she said. (Reuters in CNNMoney.com)

Mekong River13-Apr-06 17:37

13-Apr-06 17:37

I have read many answer that post to your question. But it seem that it does not relate to your question.

KellyR wrote:
is there a dos command or winxp program that can be used to check the IP addresses of networked computers remotely?

If it is in the same LAN, and you also know the computer name, then try to use the PING command to ping directly to that computer.

KellyR wrote:
Basically my problem is, I have an ethernet cable connected from my computer to a piece of hardware that has an IP address. I can only check what that IP address is from my computer, not from that hardware. How can I do this?

If you do not know about its name try to use IP SCANNER.[^]

Norton Firewall problem

Ted Ferenc13-Apr-06 3:18

13-Apr-06 3:18

I.m trying to get Norton Firewall 9.1.0.33 to see two PCs on a LAN on a friends PC. I did have it working last year, but it has now 'stopped' working, obviously my fault!

The problem is that if I set up the Trusted Zone, both PCs see each other, if I then reboot then the PCs can't see each other. If I change the Trusted Zone, and then put it back to what it was it works. Surfing the Net I can't find any sensible reasons/fixes for
this, so any suggestions?

Some detail on what I have done in detail

Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
PCs see each other
Change Trusted Zone to 192.168.100.100 to 192.168.255.255
PCs can't see each other, as expected.
Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
PCs see each other
Reboot, PCs can't see each other.

The best solution I have seem it to get rid of Norton, but that would be too easy!

My current best guess is an auto update has changed something, or my friend has screwed it up, but that is probably beyond his skill level.

"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman

David Crow13-Apr-06 4:10

13-Apr-06 4:10

Ted Ferenc wrote:
...any suggestions?

Have you tried here?

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain

"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb

Ted Ferenc13-Apr-06 5:50

13-Apr-06 5:50

Thanks but I thought Norton == Symantec?

David Crow13-Apr-06 6:12

13-Apr-06 6:12

Ted Ferenc wrote:
Thanks but I thought Norton == Symantec?

You are right. I'm not sure how I got that link from Symantec's site. Try here instead.

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain

"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb

Ted Ferenc13-Apr-06 6:25

13-Apr-06 6:25

DavidCrow wrote:
I'm not sure how I got that link

Add more water!

Thanks, support was going to be my last resort, that is a good link, I was hoping some one here has seen this before.

Mekong River13-Apr-06 17:30

13-Apr-06 17:30

Ted Ferenc wrote:
Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255

PCs see each other

Change Trusted Zone to 192.168.100.100 to 192.168.255.255

PCs can't see each other, as expected.

Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255

PCs see each other

Reboot, PCs can't see each other.

In my opinion, don't set an IP address to a difference network id. Try to set 192.168.100.100 and another one is 192.168.100.125. Then reboot your computer. Try to test it whether it see each other or not.

Ted Ferenc13-Apr-06 21:27

13-Apr-06 21:27

Thanks, I tried setting the specific IP addresses of each of the computers as well as an all encompassing range, that failed as well.

Mekong River13-Apr-06 23:08

13-Apr-06 23:08

Ok, in my opinion, you should consult with your norton firewall documentation. I could remeber that when windows xp sp 2 first release, it also introduce about new security feature which hide your PC on the network to prevent from a hacker. It also provide a documentation to configure sp2.

Ted Ferenc14-Apr-06 5:41

User Profile Deletes on logoff

14-Apr-06 5:41

You will be sursprised to hear, I have read the documentation, it was as a last resort mind you! Blush | :O

XP Security has been turned off, as I said it works fine util you reboot the PC.

Ah well, lets see if Symantec come up with an answer.

MohammadAmiry12-Apr-06 22:20

MohammadAmiry

12-Apr-06 22:20

Hi The users' profiles in my LAN gets deleted after logoff.. I guess this is related to group policy, but I don't know exactly how...
I want to know how to remove this feature (i.e. I want the profiles to remain after logoff).

Thanks in advance

Re: User Profile Deletes on logoff

Mekong River13-Apr-06 17:27

stackwalker.cpp not working independently?

13-Apr-06 17:27

Check your user account group membership. As far as I know, guest account profile are deleted automatically when user log off. I also experience with my laptop running windows xp professional. My document are delete after I log off the guest account.

inamulev11-Apr-06 21:24

inamulev

11-Apr-06 21:24

We have an application developed in c++ and the development environment is visual studio .net 2003. We have added a cpp program to the application which will create a log file containing the trace back details which will help us to identify the areas of application crashes. The log file will contain details about the file name, line number and the order of the called functions leading to the crash. The cpp program we had added is stackwalker.cpp which is downloaded from the net. This application is working fine in the system where we are building the application. But when we copy the executable alone to a different system where we dont have any supporting softwares like visual studio .net 2003, it is creating a log file but the log file does not have the necessary trace back details. Can any one say why the trace back details is not getting generated when we run the executable alone in a separate system. Is there any separate library files or dll files that we need to include along with the executable or do we need to make any changes in the environmental variable settings.

Re: stackwalker.cpp not working independently?

David Crow13-Apr-06 4:14

Re: Windows Cluster Service

13-Apr-06 4:14

Why post this in the Operating Systems/SysAdmin forum?

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain

"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb

Windows Cluster Service

sebastianos11-Apr-06 7:06

sebastianos

11-Apr-06 7:06

Yes or yes is necessary a Storage to configure Windows Cluster Service?
In Windows Server 2000 or Windows Server 2003

Thanks
Sory for my english, I'm from Argentina

Dave Kreskowiak11-Apr-06 17:37

Dave Kreskowiak

11-Apr-06 17:37

Ummm.......What?? Your question didn't make any sense what-so-ever...

Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic

Re: Windows Cluster Service

Mekong River13-Apr-06 17:14

Microsoft CRM 3.0 installation errors

13-Apr-06 17:14

sebastianos wrote:
Yes or yes is necessary a Storage to

What do you meant?

TintinV3ck11-Apr-06 5:19

TintinV3ck

11-Apr-06 5:19

I am installing Microsoft CRM 3.0 on a Small Business Server OS.

I keep on getting errors stopping me from continuing the setup until corrected.

SqlServer agent (MSSQLSERVER) is not running on the server [server_name]

however sql server 2005 is installed and running fine!

2. How do you setup a reporting service for sql server 2005?

Regards,

Tintin

Re: Microsoft CRM 3.0 installation errors

Mekong River13-Apr-06 17:12