NETBEUI Problem after XP SP2 Upgrade

[Don Cohen]

I am pretty knowledgeable about computers in general, but my networking
experience is limited. This is a home network, with 2 XP Home desktops, 1
XP Home laptop.

We connect to the internet through a Cable-Modem, via a simple switch, with
each system getting its own IP address. No router. Because of this, it is
my understanding that TCP-IP can't be used for my home network, and upon
advice from one of the microsoft newsgroups back then, I installed NETBEUI
as the protocol for this purpose. This was set up several years ago, and
has been working fine with Windows 95, 98, 98SE systems, and later with XP
as computers were upgraded.

My daughter's computer was recently upgraded to SP2 (the others have not
yet), and I can no longer access her system through the network from my
desktop or laptop, nor can I access the other computers from hers. I
rechecked her settings, workgroup name, etc., and everything seems
configured correctly.

All systems use ZoneAlarm (free version). Windows Firewall is turned off on
her SP2 system. Even when I disable all the Firewalls, I still cannot
connect.

So it seems that the SP2 upgrade altered something, effectively blocking her
system out from the network. Any advice on resolving this would be greatly
appreciated.

--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

I am pretty knowledgeable about computers in general, but my networking
experience is limited. This is a home network, with 2 XP Home desktops, 1
XP Home laptop.

We connect to the internet through a Cable-Modem, via a simple switch, with
each system getting its own IP address. No router. Because of this, it is
my understanding that TCP-IP can't be used for my home network, and upon
advice from one of the microsoft newsgroups back then, I installed NETBEUI
as the protocol for this purpose. This was set up several years ago, and
has been working fine with Windows 95, 98, 98SE systems, and later with XP
as computers were upgraded.

My daughter's computer was recently upgraded to SP2 (the others have not
yet), and I can no longer access her system through the network from my
desktop or laptop, nor can I access the other computers from hers. I
rechecked her settings, workgroup name, etc., and everything seems
configured correctly.

All systems use ZoneAlarm (free version). Windows Firewall is turned off on
her SP2 system. Even when I disable all the Firewalls, I still cannot
connect.

So it seems that the SP2 upgrade altered something, effectively blocking her
system out from the network. Any advice on resolving this would be greatly
appreciated.

You're right about the need to use a protocol other than TCP/IP for
file and printer sharing with your setup, where the computers connect
directly to a cable modem and get public IP addresses.

I haven't tested NetBEUI with SP2, and I don't know if it works. Try
un-installing and then re-installing it, following the steps in this
Microsoft Knowledge Base article:

HOW TO: Install NetBEUI on Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;301041

If NetBEUI doesn't work with SP2, I see these alternatives for you:

1. Replace NetBEUI with IPX/SPX on all computers, or:

2. Replace the switch with a broadband router to share a single public
IP address between the computers. The router would give each computer
a private IP address, so it would be safe to use TCP/IP as the only
protocol.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply and suggestions.

You're right about the need to use a protocol other than TCP/IP for
file and printer sharing with your setup, where the computers connect
directly to a cable modem and get public IP addresses.

Appreciate the confirmation.

I haven't tested NetBEUI with SP2, and I don't know if it works. Try
un-installing and then re-installing it, following the steps in this
Microsoft Knowledge Base article:

HOW TO: Install NetBEUI on Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;301041

I thought of this, but hadn't tried it yet. Will give it a shot tomorrow
when I have time, and will report back.

If NetBEUI doesn't work with SP2, I see these alternatives for you:

1. Replace NetBEUI with IPX/SPX on all computers, or:

When I check the available Network Protocols - I see "NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS
Compatible Transport Protocol". Is this what you're referring to? Any
special changes I need to make (in terms of bindings and such) after
installation, if I end up going this route?

2. Replace the switch with a broadband router to share a single public
IP address between the computers. The router would give each computer
a private IP address, so it would be safe to use TCP/IP as the only
protocol.

I believe I've been told by my ISP that doing this would have some negative
effect on performance and bandwidth. If so, I'd rather avoid that, as I
have a pretty fast connection and have gotten used to it. Is this correct
information?

Also, would a router interfere with file transfer and similar communications
when using ICQ with other family members not in my household?

Thanks!

--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply and suggestions.


Appreciate the confirmation.


I thought of this, but hadn't tried it yet. Will give it a shot tomorrow
when I have time, and will report back.


When I check the available Network Protocols - I see "NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS
Compatible Transport Protocol". Is this what you're referring to? Any
special changes I need to make (in terms of bindings and such) after
installation, if I end up going this route?


I believe I've been told by my ISP that doing this would have some negative
effect on performance and bandwidth. If so, I'd rather avoid that, as I
have a pretty fast connection and have gotten used to it. Is this correct
information?

Also, would a router interfere with file transfer and similar communications
when using ICQ with other family members not in my household?

Thanks!

You're welcome, Don.

Yes, Windows XP calls the IPX/SPX protocol "NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS
Compatible Transport Protocol". There's usually no need to make any
settings with IPX/SPX. This web page has information about settings
that are sometimes needed:

http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/ipxspx.htm

I can't address your ISP's bandwidth statement, because I don't know
how their connection to your network works. It's possible that using
multiple IP addresses gets you more total bandwidth than you could get
with one IP address. Even if it does, it's possible that the
connection would still be so fast that you've never notice the
difference.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with ICQ and can't answer your
question about it.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

 

[Chuck]

I believe I've been told by my ISP that doing this would have some negative
effect on performance and bandwidth. If so, I'd rather avoid that, as I
have a pretty fast connection and have gotten used to it. Is this correct
information?

Also, would a router interfere with file transfer and similar communications
when using ICQ with other family members not in my household?

Don,

Using a NAT router will have minimal impact upon overall throughput. Any
properly selected NAT router should be able to handle all of the bandwidth
requirements of a typical private LAN. The bottleneck, if there is one,
typically happens in the pipe between you and your ISP; having multiple IP
addresses (at extra cost) does not give you a fatter pipe.

ICQ, if it's like MSN and Yahoo Messenger (both of which I use), may
unfortunately, lose functionality. If you're going to have multiple IM clients
behind the router, or the IM client you'll be using will be doing file transfer,
audio, or video (not just text conversations), you'll need a router with UPnP
capability.

UPnP router capability allows a UPnP application, like MSN or Yahoo Messenger
(and hopefully ICQ) to control the router. This allows full functionality of
the IM program, such as file transfer, audio, video, and multiple clients.

Whether the inconvenience of losing a minimal amount of bandwidth, or of losing
slight IM functionality, justifies your avoiding use of a router, is your
decision. If you don't use a router, you use IP on your LAN, and become
infected with the worm of the month, you may experience a lot more inconvenience
or functionality.

Protect yourself, and the rest of the internet. Use a NAT router, particularly
if you're going to connect more than one computer to the internet. Please.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Steve,

Once again - thanks for the reply and info. I should have some results, one
way or the other, in a day or so (today's looking pretty busy).

--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Chuck,

<SNIP>
Don,

Using a NAT router will have minimal impact upon overall throughput. Any
properly selected NAT router should be able to handle all of the bandwidth
requirements of a typical private LAN. The bottleneck, if there is one,
typically happens in the pipe between you and your ISP; having multiple IP
addresses (at extra cost) does not give you a fatter pipe.

ICQ, if it's like MSN and Yahoo Messenger (both of which I use), may
unfortunately, lose functionality. If you're going to have multiple IM clients
behind the router, or the IM client you'll be using will be doing file transfer,
audio, or video (not just text conversations), you'll need a router with UPnP
capability.

UPnP router capability allows a UPnP application, like MSN or Yahoo Messenger
(and hopefully ICQ) to control the router. This allows full functionality of
the IM program, such as file transfer, audio, video, and multiple clients.

I appreciate this added information about available options.

Regarding NAT or UPnP routers - are you talking about configuring a router
one of these ways, or does this mean there are physically different routers?
If so, do you have any specific recommendations?

Whether the inconvenience of losing a minimal amount of bandwidth, or of losing
slight IM functionality, justifies your avoiding use of a router, is your
decision. If you don't use a router, you use IP on your LAN, and become
infected with the worm of the month, you may experience a lot more inconvenience
or functionality.
Protect yourself, and the rest of the internet. Use a NAT router, particularly
if you're going to connect more than one computer to the internet.

Please.

Understood. I'm pretty conscientious about this, running ZoneAlarm on all
systems, NAV with timely updates, Windows Critical Updates, as well as
scanning with SpyBot and AdAware on a regular basis. So far I've
experienced no significant issues, but do realize the need for constant
vigilence!

Best regards,
--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Chuck]

Hi Chuck,


I appreciate this added information about available options.

Regarding NAT or UPnP routers - are you talking about configuring a router
one of these ways, or does this mean there are physically different routers?
If so, do you have any specific recommendations?

Please.

Understood. I'm pretty conscientious about this, running ZoneAlarm on all
systems, NAV with timely updates, Windows Critical Updates, as well as
scanning with SpyBot and AdAware on a regular basis. So far I've
experienced no significant issues, but do realize the need for constant
vigilence!

Don,

Unfortunately, UPnP, like functional logging, NTP clock synchronisation, SPI,
and VPN capability, is a feature not found on all NAT routers. Choosing a NAT
router is an art, not a science, and can only be done based upon a lot of
individual preferences. UPnP can be enabled only on a router if the firmware
supports UPnP.

For help in choosing a NAT router, you should spend a substantial amount of time
comparing technical specs in the vendor websites, in comp.security.firewalls,
and in the individual BBR/DSLR Forums (http://www.dslreports.com/forums) for the
various popular brands of NAT routers, such as D-Link, Linksys, Netgear, and
Linksys. Be careful when you ask for advice in comp.security.firewalls, and do
not confuse firewalls and NAT routers - the two are not the same, to the experts
in that forum.

When you compare NAT routers, compare on the basis of objective features, not
subjective experiences. All NAT routers, like computers and operating systems,
are subject to performance and reliability problems - and generally experiences
with unreliability receive more attention online than with experiences with
reliability.

Whatever brand of NAT router you choose, please consider that even a bad choice
is better than no choice. If you use IPX/SPX or NetBEUI to protect file sharing
on your LAN, and connect multiple computers thru a hub with public ip addresses,
services other than file sharing can be exploited by the bad guys.

Using a personal firewall will not provide complete protection - personal
firewalls, like any operating system component are subject to attack, and can be
bypassed or disabled by hostile network traffic. And filtering the major volume
of the hostile traffic on the internet, by using a NAT router, will make any
individual computer attached to a NAT router run better.

BTW, Don, posting your email address openly will get you more unwanted email,
than wanted email. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep yourself
a bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of the
internet - read this article.
http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_munging.htm

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Chuck,

Don,

Unfortunately, UPnP, like functional logging, NTP clock synchronisation, SPI,
and VPN capability, is a feature not found on all NAT routers. Choosing a NAT
router is an art, not a science, and can only be done based upon a lot of
individual preferences. UPnP can be enabled only on a router if the firmware
supports UPnP.

Whatever brand of NAT router you choose, please consider that even a bad choice
is better than no choice. If you use IPX/SPX or NetBEUI to protect file sharing
on your LAN, and connect multiple computers thru a hub with public ip addresses,
services other than file sharing can be exploited by the bad guys.

Once again, thanks for the info and recommendations. Regarding the last
point, I was advised (by Steve Winograd, in fact) when I installed NETBEUI
several years back when I first set up my home network, to uncheck the
bindings for TCP/IP for both File/Printer Sharing and Microsoft Client for
protection. Is this not sufficient?

So I'm a bit conflicted concerning implementing your recommendations. I
already spend too much time servicing and maintaining not only my computers,
but my kids out of the home, etc. The prospect of having to research and
learn yet another area, consume hours through making mistakes and learning
from them, is not real appealing...

BTW, Don, posting your email address openly will get you more unwanted email,
than wanted email. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep yourself
a bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of the
internet - read this article.
http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_munging.htm

I thought I had addressed this issue by having my email reply address shown
as (e-mail address removed). My signature includes the instructions to
"remove lens cap" to reply, since alltel.net is actually the correct ending
of the address. I've read through the page you referenced (btw, thanks for
that!), and I may be missing something, it looks that this complies with
their recommendations. Am I missing something?

I really appreciate your taking the time to help out, and if I need to do
things differently and better, I'm definitely open to suggestions.

--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Chuck]

Hi Chuck,



Once again, thanks for the info and recommendations. Regarding the last
point, I was advised (by Steve Winograd, in fact) when I installed NETBEUI
several years back when I first set up my home network, to uncheck the
bindings for TCP/IP for both File/Printer Sharing and Microsoft Client for
protection. Is this not sufficient?

So I'm a bit conflicted concerning implementing your recommendations. I
already spend too much time servicing and maintaining not only my computers,
but my kids out of the home, etc. The prospect of having to research and
learn yet another area, consume hours through making mistakes and learning
from them, is not real appealing...


I thought I had addressed this issue by having my email reply address shown
as (e-mail address removed). My signature includes the instructions to
"remove lens cap" to reply, since alltel.net is actually the correct ending
of the address. I've read through the page you referenced (btw, thanks for
that!), and I may be missing something, it looks that this complies with
their recommendations. Am I missing something?

I really appreciate your taking the time to help out, and if I need to do
things differently and better, I'm definitely open to suggestions.

DOHH! I missed the clue in your sig.

Re the NetBEUI issue, unbinding CMN and FPSMN from TCP/IP will protect your file
sharing from internet access. It will not protect all the other TCP/IP bound
services that run on your computer, however.

Exposing file sharing is dangerous - it can expose secrets in your personal data
stored on your computer. But exposing the many (non file sharing) services on
your computer is equally as dangerous.

I sympathise with your frustration about the amount of time you may have to
spend securing your computers. Please read some of the security forums, like
alt.comp.virus, alt.computer.security, and alt.privacy.spyware, and see the
consequences (and expenses) possibly incurred by not securing them,
particularly with kids using the computers.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Don Cohen]

Exposing file sharing is dangerous - it can expose secrets in your
personal data

stored on your computer. But exposing the many (non file sharing) services on
your computer is equally as dangerous.

I sympathise with your frustration about the amount of time you may have to
spend securing your computers. Please read some of the security forums, like
alt.comp.virus, alt.computer.security, and alt.privacy.spyware, and see the
consequences (and expenses) possibly incurred by not securing them,
particularly with kids using the computers.

Understood; guess I'll give this more thought.

Best,


--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Steve,

I haven't tested NetBEUI with SP2, and I don't know if it works. Try
un-installing and then re-installing it, following the steps in this
Microsoft Knowledge Base article:

HOW TO: Install NetBEUI on Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;301041

To report back:

I uninstalled NETBEUI, rebooted the computer, and reinstalled NETBEUI,
copying the files back from the XP CD. Interestingly, this didn't require a
reboot.

But lo and behold, I can see the other computers on the network from this
one, and was able to see it from the others, so this uninstall/reinstall of
NETBEUI following the XP SP2 upgrade did the trick.

Of course, I'm still pondering the advice Chuck gave elsewhere on this
thread about using a NAT or UPnP router for more protection....

Thanks for all your help.

--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

 

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

Hi Steve,


To report back:

I uninstalled NETBEUI, rebooted the computer, and reinstalled NETBEUI,
copying the files back from the XP CD. Interestingly, this didn't require a
reboot.

But lo and behold, I can see the other computers on the network from this
one, and was able to see it from the others, so this uninstall/reinstall of
NETBEUI following the XP SP2 upgrade did the trick.

Of course, I'm still pondering the advice Chuck gave elsewhere on this
thread about using a NAT or UPnP router for more protection....

Thanks for all your help.

You're welcome, Don. Thanks for the update.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com