Help with Internet Connection Sharing

[Pat]

I have a simple two computer network (both Windows XP)
via HPNA adapters. I am using internet connection sharing
to allow the second computer to access the internet
through the main computer's cable modem. Seemed to work
ok at first. However, now there are certain web sites
that I cannot access from the second computer that I can
access through the main computer (espn.com for example).
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

Sounds like an MTU problem. Installing SP1 on the host might help, I'm only
familiar with this on a PPPoE connection. If it doesn't help, post back and
someone can advise you on other MTU adjustments.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I have a simple two computer network (both Windows XP)
> via HPNA adapters. I am using internet connection sharing
> to allow the second computer to access the internet
> through the main computer's cable modem. Seemed to work
> ok at first. However, now there are certain web sites
> that I cannot access from the second computer that I can
> access through the main computer (espn.com for example).
> Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Pat]

I frequently run windows update. I have installed all
critical updates. I believe I have loaded SP1. When I
look at properties on My Computer it says: "Microsoft
Windows XP Home Edition Version 2002 Service Pack 1."

I'm not familiar with what the MTU is. Any other
suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks.

>-----Original Message-----
>Sounds like an MTU problem. Installing SP1 on the host
might help, I'm only
>familiar with this on a PPPoE connection. If it doesn't
help, post back and
>someone can advise you on other MTU adjustments.
>
>--
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>
>
>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>> I have a simple two computer network (both Windows XP)
>> via HPNA adapters. I am using internet connection
sharing
>> to allow the second computer to access the internet
>> through the main computer's cable modem. Seemed to work
>> ok at first. However, now there are certain web sites
>> that I cannot access from the second computer that I
can
>> access through the main computer (espn.com for
example).
>> Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>
>.
>

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU tweaks. Perhaps he will
see this and post it.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I frequently run windows update. I have installed all
> critical updates. I believe I have loaded SP1. When I
> look at properties on My Computer it says: "Microsoft
> Windows XP Home Edition Version 2002 Service Pack 1."
>
> I'm not familiar with what the MTU is. Any other
> suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Sounds like an MTU problem. Installing SP1 on the host
> might help, I'm only
> >familiar with this on a PPPoE connection. If it doesn't
> help, post back and
> >someone can advise you on other MTU adjustments.
> >
> >--
> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
> >
> >
> >"Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I have a simple two computer network (both Windows XP)
> >> via HPNA adapters. I am using internet connection
> sharing
> >> to allow the second computer to access the internet
> >> through the main computer's cable modem. Seemed to work
> >> ok at first. However, now there are certain web sites
> >> that I cannot access from the second computer that I
> can
> >> access through the main computer (espn.com for
> example).
> >> Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
> >
> >
> >.
> >

[Steve Winograd]

In article >, "Ken Wickes
[MSFT]" > wrote:
>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU tweaks. Perhaps he will
>see this and post it.

Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found for the MTU problem
with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:

Can't access some websites while using a shared PPPoE connection
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107

DrTCP
http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html

Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use a PPPoE Connection
on a Windows XP ICS Host
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;319661

Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin Connectivity
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html

I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE where an MTU tweak
was needed: a wireless network card couldn't connect to some web
sites through a particular broadband router and wireless access point.
--
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

[Pat]

Thanks for the information. Before I go messing around
with the registry, I was wondering if you can tell me how
to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I connect to
my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't understand
a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.


>-----Original Message-----
>In article >, "Ken
Wickes
>[MSFT]" > wrote:
>>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU
tweaks. Perhaps he will
>>see this and post it.
>
>Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found for the
MTU problem
>with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
>
>Can't access some websites while using a shared PPPoE
connection
>http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
>
>DrTCP
>http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
>
>Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use a PPPoE
Connection
>on a Windows XP ICS Host
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;319661
>
>Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin Connectivity
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
>
>I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE where an
MTU tweak
>was needed: a wireless network card couldn't connect to
some web
>sites through a particular broadband router and wireless
access point.
>--
>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
>.
>

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

One of your network connections would say PPPoE as it's type. It's mostly
used for DSL, not cable.

I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem without PPPoE, but I
think it's worth a shot. You can always put it back.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing around
> with the registry, I was wondering if you can tell me how
> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I connect to
> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't understand
> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >In article >, "Ken
> Wickes
> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU
> tweaks. Perhaps he will
> >>see this and post it.
> >
> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found for the
> MTU problem
> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
> >
> >Can't access some websites while using a shared PPPoE
> connection
> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
> >
> >DrTCP
> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
> >
> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use a PPPoE
> Connection
> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;319661
> >
> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin Connectivity
> >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
> >
> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE where an
> MTU tweak
> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't connect to
> some web
> >sites through a particular broadband router and wireless
> access point.
> >--
> >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
> >.
> >

[Pat]

Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure from
the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and got
the following:

C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1

Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:

Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I lowered
the MTU size I got the following:

C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1

Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),


Which is not what was described. Could this somehow be a
symptom of the problem?

Thanks Again. Pat

>-----Original Message-----
>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as it's
type. It's mostly
>used for DSL, not cable.
>
>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
without PPPoE, but I
>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it back.
>
>--
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>
>
>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing around
>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can tell me
how
>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I connect
to
>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
understand
>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >In article
>, "Ken
>> Wickes
>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU
>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
>> >>see this and post it.
>> >
>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found for
the
>> MTU problem
>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
>> >
>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared PPPoE
>> connection
>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
>> >
>> >DrTCP
>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
>> >
>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use a
PPPoE
>> Connection
>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
>> us;319661
>> >
>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin Connectivity
>> >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
>> >
>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
where an
>> MTU tweak
>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't connect
to
>> some web
>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
wireless
>> access point.
>> >--
>> >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
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>

[Pat]

I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
the -f and -l options works just fine.
>-----Original Message-----
>Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure from
>the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
>size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and got
>the following:
>
>C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
>
>Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
>
>Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>
>Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
loss),
>
>Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
lowered
>the MTU size I got the following:
>
>C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
>
>Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
>
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
>
>Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
loss),
>
>
>Which is not what was described. Could this somehow be a
>symptom of the problem?
>
>Thanks Again. Pat
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as it's
>type. It's mostly
>>used for DSL, not cable.
>>
>>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
>without PPPoE, but I
>>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it back.
>>
>>--
>>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and
>confers no rights.
>>
>>
>>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing around
>>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can tell me
>how
>>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
connect
>to
>>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
>understand
>>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
>>>
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >In article
>, "Ken
>>> Wickes
>>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
>>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU
>>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
>>> >>see this and post it.
>>> >
>>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found for
>the
>>> MTU problem
>>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
>>> >
>>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared PPPoE
>>> connection
>>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
>>> >
>>> >DrTCP
>>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
>>> >
>>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use a
>PPPoE
>>> Connection
>>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
>>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
>>> us;319661
>>> >
>>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin Connectivity
>>> >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
>>> >
>>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
>where an
>>> MTU tweak
>>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
connect
>to
>>> some web
>>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
>wireless
>>> access point.
>>> >--
>>> >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
>>> >.
>>> >
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>.
>

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
> the -f and -l options works just fine.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure from
> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and got
> >the following:
> >
> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
> >
> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
> >
> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >
> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> loss),
> >
> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
> lowered
> >the MTU size I got the following:
> >
> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
> >
> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
> >
> >Request timed out.
> >Request timed out.
> >Request timed out.
> >Request timed out.
> >
> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> loss),
> >
> >
> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow be a
> >symptom of the problem?
> >
> >Thanks Again. Pat
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as it's
> >type. It's mostly
> >>used for DSL, not cable.
> >>
> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
> >without PPPoE, but I
> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it back.
> >>
> >>--
> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >confers no rights.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing around
> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can tell me
> >how
> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
> connect
> >to
> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
> >understand
> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >In article
> >, "Ken
> >>> Wickes
> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of MTU
> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
> >>> >>see this and post it.
> >>> >
> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found for
> >the
> >>> MTU problem
> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
> >>> >
> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared PPPoE
> >>> connection
> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
> >>> >
> >>> >DrTCP
> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
> >>> >
> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use a
> >PPPoE
> >>> Connection
> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> >>> us;319661
> >>> >
> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin Connectivity
> >>> >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
> >>> >
> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
> >where an
> >>> MTU tweak
> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
> connect
> >to
> >>> some web
> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
> >wireless
> >>> access point.
> >>> >--
> >>> >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
> >>> >.
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >

[Pat]

I tried values of 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 and they
worked fine. I tried 1300 and it gave the "request timed
out" error that I described below. Thanks for your
continued help. -Pat


>-----Original Message-----
>Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?
>
>--
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>
>
>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
>> the -f and -l options works just fine.
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure
from
>> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
>> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and
got
>> >the following:
>> >
>> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
>> >
>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
>> >
>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>> >
>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
>> loss),
>> >
>> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
>> lowered
>> >the MTU size I got the following:
>> >
>> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
>> >
>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
>> >
>> >Request timed out.
>> >Request timed out.
>> >Request timed out.
>> >Request timed out.
>> >
>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
>> loss),
>> >
>> >
>> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow
be a
>> >symptom of the problem?
>> >
>> >Thanks Again. Pat
>> >
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as
it's
>> >type. It's mostly
>> >>used for DSL, not cable.
>> >>
>> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
>> >without PPPoE, but I
>> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it back.
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
>> and
>> >confers no rights.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing
around
>> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can tell
me
>> >how
>> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
>> connect
>> >to
>> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
>> >understand
>> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >>> >In article
>> >, "Ken
>> >>> Wickes
>> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
>> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of
MTU
>> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
>> >>> >>see this and post it.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found
for
>> >the
>> >>> MTU problem
>> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared
PPPoE
>> >>> connection
>> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
>> >>> >
>> >>> >DrTCP
>> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You Use
a
>> >PPPoE
>> >>> Connection
>> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
>> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
scid=kb;en-
>> >>> us;319661
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin
Connectivity
>> >>>
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
>> >>> >
>> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
>> >where an
>> >>> MTU tweak
>> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
>> connect
>> >to
>> >>> some web
>> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
>> >wireless
>> >>> access point.
>> >>> >--
>> >>> >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
>> >>> >.
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>.
>> >>
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>

[Pat]

I noticed that the MTU size on the Host computer was set
to 1300. (I have no idea why, I'm sure I have never
edited the registry before.) Anyway, I set the MTU size
on the client computer to 1200 and everything seems to
work great now. Thanks again for your help. I would have
NEVER figured this out on my own. Pat



>-----Original Message-----
>I tried values of 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 and they
>worked fine. I tried 1300 and it gave the "request timed
>out" error that I described below. Thanks for your
>continued help. -Pat
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?
>>
>>--
>>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and
>confers no rights.
>>
>>
>>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>>> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
>>> the -f and -l options works just fine.
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure
>from
>>> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
>>> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and
>got
>>> >the following:
>>> >
>>> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
>>> >
>>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
>>> >
>>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
>>> >
>>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
>>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
>>> loss),
>>> >
>>> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
>>> lowered
>>> >the MTU size I got the following:
>>> >
>>> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
>>> >
>>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
>>> >
>>> >Request timed out.
>>> >Request timed out.
>>> >Request timed out.
>>> >Request timed out.
>>> >
>>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
>>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
>>> loss),
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow
>be a
>>> >symptom of the problem?
>>> >
>>> >Thanks Again. Pat
>>> >
>>> >>-----Original Message-----
>>> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as
>it's
>>> >type. It's mostly
>>> >>used for DSL, not cable.
>>> >>
>>> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
>>> >without PPPoE, but I
>>> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it
back.
>>> >>
>>> >>--
>>> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
>>> and
>>> >confers no rights.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing
>around
>>> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can
tell
>me
>>> >how
>>> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
>>> connect
>>> >to
>>> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
>>> >understand
>>> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >>> >In article
>>> >, "Ken
>>> >>> Wickes
>>> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
>>> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of
>MTU
>>> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
>>> >>> >>see this and post it.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found
>for
>>> >the
>>> >>> MTU problem
>>> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared
>PPPoE
>>> >>> connection
>>> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >DrTCP
>>> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You
Use
>a
>>> >PPPoE
>>> >>> Connection
>>> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
>>> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
>scid=kb;en-
>>> >>> us;319661
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin
>Connectivity
>>> >>>
>>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
>>> >where an
>>> >>> MTU tweak
>>> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
>>> connect
>>> >to
>>> >>> some web
>>> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
>>> >wireless
>>> >>> access point.
>>> >>> >--
>>> >>> >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
>>> >>> >.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>.
>>> >>
>>> >.
>>> >
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>.
>

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

Glad I was able to steer you in the right direction. Now I have to sit down
and figure out why it worked :) MTU are brutally hard for anyone that is
not a TCP/IP expert to diagnose.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I noticed that the MTU size on the Host computer was set
> to 1300. (I have no idea why, I'm sure I have never
> edited the registry before.) Anyway, I set the MTU size
> on the client computer to 1200 and everything seems to
> work great now. Thanks again for your help. I would have
> NEVER figured this out on my own. Pat
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I tried values of 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 and they
> >worked fine. I tried 1300 and it gave the "request timed
> >out" error that I described below. Thanks for your
> >continued help. -Pat
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?
> >>
> >>--
> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >confers no rights.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
> >>> the -f and -l options works just fine.
> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure
> >from
> >>> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
> >>> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and
> >got
> >>> >the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
> >>> lowered
> >>> >the MTU size I got the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow
> >be a
> >>> >symptom of the problem?
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks Again. Pat
> >>> >
> >>> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as
> >it's
> >>> >type. It's mostly
> >>> >>used for DSL, not cable.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
> >>> >without PPPoE, but I
> >>> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it
> back.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>--
> >>> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> >>> and
> >>> >confers no rights.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing
> >around
> >>> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can
> tell
> >me
> >>> >how
> >>> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
> >>> >understand
> >>> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>> >In article
> >>> >, "Ken
> >>> >>> Wickes
> >>> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of
> >MTU
> >>> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
> >>> >>> >>see this and post it.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found
> >for
> >>> >the
> >>> >>> MTU problem
> >>> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared
> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> connection
> >>> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >DrTCP
> >>> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You
> Use
> >a
> >>> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> Connection
> >>> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
> >>> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
> >scid=kb;en-
> >>> >>> us;319661
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin
> >Connectivity
> >>> >>>
> >>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
> >>> >where an
> >>> >>> MTU tweak
> >>> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> some web
> >>> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
> >>> >wireless
> >>> >>> access point.
> >>> >>> >--
> >>> >>> >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
> >>> >>> >.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>.
> >>> >>
> >>> >.
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

Glad I was able to steer you in the right direction. Now I have to sit down
and figure out why it worked :) MTU are brutally hard for anyone that is
not a TCP/IP expert to diagnose.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I noticed that the MTU size on the Host computer was set
> to 1300. (I have no idea why, I'm sure I have never
> edited the registry before.) Anyway, I set the MTU size
> on the client computer to 1200 and everything seems to
> work great now. Thanks again for your help. I would have
> NEVER figured this out on my own. Pat
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I tried values of 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 and they
> >worked fine. I tried 1300 and it gave the "request timed
> >out" error that I described below. Thanks for your
> >continued help. -Pat
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?
> >>
> >>--
> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >confers no rights.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
> >>> the -f and -l options works just fine.
> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure
> >from
> >>> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
> >>> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and
> >got
> >>> >the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
> >>> lowered
> >>> >the MTU size I got the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow
> >be a
> >>> >symptom of the problem?
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks Again. Pat
> >>> >
> >>> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as
> >it's
> >>> >type. It's mostly
> >>> >>used for DSL, not cable.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
> >>> >without PPPoE, but I
> >>> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it
> back.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>--
> >>> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> >>> and
> >>> >confers no rights.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing
> >around
> >>> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can
> tell
> >me
> >>> >how
> >>> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
> >>> >understand
> >>> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>> >In article
> >>> >, "Ken
> >>> >>> Wickes
> >>> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of
> >MTU
> >>> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
> >>> >>> >>see this and post it.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found
> >for
> >>> >the
> >>> >>> MTU problem
> >>> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared
> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> connection
> >>> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >DrTCP
> >>> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You
> Use
> >a
> >>> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> Connection
> >>> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
> >>> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
> >scid=kb;en-
> >>> >>> us;319661
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin
> >Connectivity
> >>> >>>
> >>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
> >>> >where an
> >>> >>> MTU tweak
> >>> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> some web
> >>> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
> >>> >wireless
> >>> >>> access point.
> >>> >>> >--
> >>> >>> >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
> >>> >>> >.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>.
> >>> >>
> >>> >.
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

Glad I was able to steer you in the right direction. Now I have to sit down
and figure out why it worked :) MTU are brutally hard for anyone that is
not a TCP/IP expert to diagnose.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I noticed that the MTU size on the Host computer was set
> to 1300. (I have no idea why, I'm sure I have never
> edited the registry before.) Anyway, I set the MTU size
> on the client computer to 1200 and everything seems to
> work great now. Thanks again for your help. I would have
> NEVER figured this out on my own. Pat
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I tried values of 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 and they
> >worked fine. I tried 1300 and it gave the "request timed
> >out" error that I described below. Thanks for your
> >continued help. -Pat
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?
> >>
> >>--
> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >confers no rights.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
> >>> the -f and -l options works just fine.
> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure
> >from
> >>> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
> >>> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and
> >got
> >>> >the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
> >>> lowered
> >>> >the MTU size I got the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow
> >be a
> >>> >symptom of the problem?
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks Again. Pat
> >>> >
> >>> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as
> >it's
> >>> >type. It's mostly
> >>> >>used for DSL, not cable.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
> >>> >without PPPoE, but I
> >>> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it
> back.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>--
> >>> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> >>> and
> >>> >confers no rights.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing
> >around
> >>> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can
> tell
> >me
> >>> >how
> >>> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
> >>> >understand
> >>> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>> >In article
> >>> >, "Ken
> >>> >>> Wickes
> >>> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of
> >MTU
> >>> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
> >>> >>> >>see this and post it.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found
> >for
> >>> >the
> >>> >>> MTU problem
> >>> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared
> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> connection
> >>> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >DrTCP
> >>> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You
> Use
> >a
> >>> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> Connection
> >>> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
> >>> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
> >scid=kb;en-
> >>> >>> us;319661
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin
> >Connectivity
> >>> >>>
> >>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
> >>> >where an
> >>> >>> MTU tweak
> >>> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> some web
> >>> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
> >>> >wireless
> >>> >>> access point.
> >>> >>> >--
> >>> >>> >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
> >>> >>> >.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>.
> >>> >>
> >>> >.
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >

[Ken Wickes [MSFT]]

Glad I was able to steer you in the right direction. Now I have to sit down
and figure out why it worked :) MTU are brutally hard for anyone that is
not a TCP/IP expert to diagnose.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I noticed that the MTU size on the Host computer was set
> to 1300. (I have no idea why, I'm sure I have never
> edited the registry before.) Anyway, I set the MTU size
> on the client computer to 1200 and everything seems to
> work great now. Thanks again for your help. I would have
> NEVER figured this out on my own. Pat
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I tried values of 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 and they
> >worked fine. I tried 1300 and it gave the "request timed
> >out" error that I described below. Thanks for your
> >continued help. -Pat
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Does ping with a intermediate value like say 800 work?
> >>
> >>--
> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> and
> >confers no rights.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> I meant to put in the original, that a "ping" without
> >>> the -f and -l options works just fine.
> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >Ok. I started to work my way through the procudure
> >from
> >>> >the annoyances.org site by attempting to find the MTU
> >>> >size that was suitable. I started out with 1500 and
> >got
> >>> >the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\>ping -f -l 1500 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is pretty much as expected. However, when I
> >>> lowered
> >>> >the MTU size I got the following:
> >>> >
> >>> >C:\ping -f -l 1400 192.168.0.1
> >>> >
> >>> >Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 1400 bytes of data:
> >>> >
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >Request timed out.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
> >>> > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100%
> >>> loss),
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Which is not what was described. Could this somehow
> >be a
> >>> >symptom of the problem?
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks Again. Pat
> >>> >
> >>> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>One of your network connections would say PPPoE as
> >it's
> >>> >type. It's mostly
> >>> >>used for DSL, not cable.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>I agree with Steve that it's odd to see MTU problem
> >>> >without PPPoE, but I
> >>> >>think it's worth a shot. You can always put it
> back.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>--
> >>> >>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> >>> and
> >>> >confers no rights.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"Pat" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >>> Thanks for the information. Before I go messing
> >around
> >>> >>> with the registry, I was wondering if you can
> tell
> >me
> >>> >how
> >>> >>> to tell the connection in question is PPPoE? I
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> my cable modem via USB port. Sorry, but I don't
> >>> >understand
> >>> >>> a lot about these protocols. Thanks again.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>> >In article
> >>> >, "Ken
> >>> >>> Wickes
> >>> >>> >[MSFT]" > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>I believe Steve Winograd has a nice summary of
> >MTU
> >>> >>> tweaks. Perhaps he will
> >>> >>> >>see this and post it.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Hi, Ken. Here are the web pages that I've found
> >for
> >>> >the
> >>> >>> MTU problem
> >>> >>> >with ICS clients and PPPoE connections:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Can't access some websites while using a shared
> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> connection
> >>> >>> >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article04-107
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >DrTCP
> >>> >>> >http://www.dslreports.com/front/drtcp.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Connectivity Problems on ICS Clients When You
> Use
> >a
> >>> >PPPoE
> >>> >>> Connection
> >>> >>> >on a Windows XP ICS Host
> >>> >>> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
> >scid=kb;en-
> >>> >>> us;319661
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >Troubleshooting MTU Size in PPPoE Dialin
> >Connectivity
> >>> >>>
> >>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/router_mtu.html
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >I've only seen one case not related to ICS/PPPoE
> >>> >where an
> >>> >>> MTU tweak
> >>> >>> >was needed: a wireless network card couldn't
> >>> connect
> >>> >to
> >>> >>> some web
> >>> >>> >sites through a particular broadband router and
> >>> >wireless
> >>> >>> access point.
> >>> >>> >--
> >>> >>> >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
> >>> >>> >.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>.
> >>> >>
> >>> >.
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >