I have a router connected to my comcast cable modem and several XP and
unix boxes. They all work fine except for one (it's always one...).
It's running XP home and has both wireless and 100baseT cards in it.
When using either interface, if you connect to a unix box (netbsd in
this case) it seems to think this system has the address of the WAN
(cable box). It rejects mail from this system because it doesn't think
it's in the domain. If you do a "w", it shows it as having the WAN
address but if you do a "ipconfig" on the client it shows the right
DHCP address and domain. All the network settings are exactly the same
as the others and it does it on both interfaces. Very strange. I'd
appreciate any ideas.

-jim

"Jim" <jv9999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d8bc291f.0402140739.23002ab9@posting.google.com...
> I have a router connected to my comcast cable modem and several XP and
> unix boxes. They all work fine except for one (it's always one...).
> It's running XP home and has both wireless and 100baseT cards in it.
> When using either interface, if you connect to a unix box (netbsd in
> this case) it seems to think this system has the address of the WAN
> (cable box). It rejects mail from this system because it doesn't think
> it's in the domain. If you do a "w", it shows it as having the WAN
> address but if you do a "ipconfig" on the client it shows the right
> DHCP address and domain. All the network settings are exactly the same
> as the others and it does it on both interfaces. Very strange. I'd
> appreciate any ideas.
>
> -jim

I wont bother responding to a question about XP and netbsd in this
newsgroup.
Its surely multi-posted too.

If I were to give an answer, I would say that the WAN router was
misconfigured . He has given the wired and wireless lan different network
addresses to his Unix farm, where they should be all part of the one
netmask.

Jim <jv9999@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's running XP home and has both wireless and 100baseT cards in it.

> When using either interface, if you connect to a unix box (netbsd in
> this case) it seems to think this system has the address of the WAN
> (cable box).

What routes does the XP box have? (route show)

I think you need to put the wireless and wired networks on different
subnets, especially with multihomed hosts.

--
Cameron Kerr
cameron.kerr@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!

jv9999@yahoo.com (Jim) wrote in message news:<d8bc291f.0402140739.23002ab9@posting.google.com>...
> I have a router connected to my comcast cable modem and several XP and
> unix boxes. They all work fine except for one (it's always one...).
> It's running XP home and has both wireless and 100baseT cards in it.
> When using either interface, if you connect to a unix box (netbsd in
> this case) it seems to think this system has the address of the WAN

"this system" as in XP box or netbsd box? Is the netbsd box acting as
a gw somehow or have packet forwarding set?

> (cable box). It rejects mail from this system because it doesn't think

again, "this system" in what sense -- I'm kinda dense when it comes to
the use of "this".

It "rejects" as in won't accept for sending? Retrieving? SMTP
errors? XP errors? Any other symptoms of "incorrect" behavior? Can
you ping Yahoo from the XP box? Surf the web, etc.?

> it's in the domain. If you do a "w", it shows it as having the WAN

Can you capture mail headers?

> address but if you do a "ipconfig" on the client it shows the right
> DHCP address and domain. All the network settings are exactly the same

Almost certainly not the case that they are the same or should be the
same. Some little something is different -- though not obvious or you
would have caught it. Could be something as fun as a Registry
setting. Yippeeeee!

> as the others and it does it on both interfaces. Very strange. I'd
> appreciate any ideas.
>
> -jim

Without some output from ifconfig and route (Linux -> NetBSD? -> XP?)
it's pretty hard to do much more than blindly guess. XP is set up for
dhcp, right? Any signs of the infamous 169.254.x.x showing up?

This may be interesting, maybe not:
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/webmaster/article.php/3287631

good luck,
prg
email above disabled