A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The network path was not found.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 22nd 12, 11:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul in Houston TX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 726
Default The network path was not found.

FrankQ wrote:
I set up a small-office/home network with two computers.

Both have the windows firewall off.

They access the internet wia a router with a fireewall.

View workgroup members shows the two computers.

But when I click the remote computer icon I get:

\\Two is not available...
The network path was not found.

What does that mean.

Did it get to the remote computer and not find a path or not find the path
to the remote computer?

I've created similar usenames and passwords on both machines and am logged
in with that username.

Any suggestions?


Router could be blocking.
Can you ping each other from both ends?
Ads
  #2  
Old March 23rd 12, 12:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:52:05 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

FrankQ wrote:
I set up a small-office/home network with two computers.

Both have the windows firewall off.

They access the internet wia a router with a fireewall.

View workgroup members shows the two computers.

But when I click the remote computer icon I get:

\\Two is not available...
The network path was not found.

What does that mean.

Did it get to the remote computer and not find a path or not find the path
to the remote computer?

I've created similar usenames and passwords on both machines and am logged
in with that username.

Any suggestions?


Router could be blocking.


Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.

Can you ping each other from both ends?


Good question.

  #3  
Old March 23rd 12, 04:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,810
Default The network path was not found.

Char Jackson wrote:

Paul wrote:

Router could be blocking.


Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.


Not true. Some routers have the feature that the intranet hosts
connected to the router can get Internet access but not access to the
other intranet hosts. Just because your family is sharing Internet
access through a router doesn't mean you want your kid getting network
access to your at-home business computer.

If you don't have a strong password to your router that only you know
along with restricting physical access to the router so only you can
access then who knows what the kids have been doing to reset or
reconfigure it. Strong password to limit who can configure the router,
physical access restriction to limit who can reset the router.

While the input side of a router is a switch, many switches can control
inter-port connections. A router, if capable, can permit external-only
connects (from LAN port to WAN port) but block inter-host connects (from
LAN port to LAN port). I now have a low-end Linksys router that doesn't
have that feature but remember a prior D-Link router that did. That way
all my family's hosts would get Internet access but they couldn't get at
my host.
  #4  
Old March 23rd 12, 05:18 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:43:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Paul wrote:

Router could be blocking.


Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.


Not true. Some routers have the feature that the intranet hosts
connected to the router can get Internet access but not access to the
other intranet hosts. Just because your family is sharing Internet
access through a router doesn't mean you want your kid getting network
access to your at-home business computer.

If you don't have a strong password to your router that only you know
along with restricting physical access to the router so only you can
access then who knows what the kids have been doing to reset or
reconfigure it. Strong password to limit who can configure the router,
physical access restriction to limit who can reset the router.

While the input side of a router is a switch, many switches can control
inter-port connections. A router, if capable, can permit external-only
connects (from LAN port to WAN port) but block inter-host connects (from
LAN port to LAN port). I now have a low-end Linksys router that doesn't
have that feature but remember a prior D-Link router that did. That way
all my family's hosts would get Internet access but they couldn't get at
my host.


I haven't seen that feature applied to the wired ports on a NAT
router, although it's fairly common to see it applied between wireless
connections and wired connections, which wouldn't apply here.

Do you have a specific example of a common NAT router that has the
capability you described? I'd like to skim through its manual to learn
more about it.

Third party firmware, like dd-wrt, can accomplish it, but I wasn't
assuming the presence of third party firmware in the OP's case.

  #5  
Old March 23rd 12, 10:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,810
Default The network path was not found.

Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:43:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Paul wrote:

Router could be blocking.

Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.


Not true. Some routers have the feature that the intranet hosts
connected to the router can get Internet access but not access to the
other intranet hosts. Just because your family is sharing Internet
access through a router doesn't mean you want your kid getting network
access to your at-home business computer.

If you don't have a strong password to your router that only you know
along with restricting physical access to the router so only you can
access then who knows what the kids have been doing to reset or
reconfigure it. Strong password to limit who can configure the router,
physical access restriction to limit who can reset the router.

While the input side of a router is a switch, many switches can control
inter-port connections. A router, if capable, can permit external-only
connects (from LAN port to WAN port) but block inter-host connects (from
LAN port to LAN port). I now have a low-end Linksys router that doesn't
have that feature but remember a prior D-Link router that did. That way
all my family's hosts would get Internet access but they couldn't get at
my host.


I haven't seen that feature applied to the wired ports on a NAT
router, although it's fairly common to see it applied between wireless
connections and wired connections, which wouldn't apply here.

Do you have a specific example of a common NAT router that has the
capability you described? I'd like to skim through its manual to learn
more about it.

Third party firmware, like dd-wrt, can accomplish it, but I wasn't
assuming the presence of third party firmware in the OP's case.


I no longer have the old and dead D-Link router. The first one burned
out after 2-1/2 years. Routers use convection cooling (no fan) and can
overheat the processor. It was getting flaky on whether the WAN-side
would work or not and it kept getting worse over 2 months until I got
another same model D-Link router which made the problem go away
immediately. That 2nd D-Link router lasted just over 2 years before the
same flakiness cropped up so I wasn't going to get another one.

One of its security settings was to block inter-port access to the
internal hosts. Your intranet hosts couldn't connect to each other. I
replaced with a Linksys router since those had lasted for many more
years at work. Alas, one of the features missing in the Linksys was the
option to block inter-LAN port routing.

It's been way too long since I had the D-Link routers. The Linksys has
been working for 6 years now. When I looked at D-Link's support page
(so I could go find a manual), none of the model numbers stuck out as
what I had before. However, I think you're experienced only with
unmanaged switches: you plop them on a shelf and connect the hosts and
there's no configuration for you do to do. It's a simple and unmanaged
switch. Managed switches lets you configure how that network device
will work. Well, since the frontend to a router is a switch then why
can't a router have a managed switch?

From what I recall, the switch (or the one in the router) might support
VLANs (virtual LANs) that allows partitioning a physical network into
multiple logical groups. Devices could belong to one, or more, groups.
That was how you choose which devices could talk to each other. Devices
in one group could not talk directly to devices in another group. The
VLANs were logical groups but treated as separate LANs. You could have
an alpha lab and dev group with their workstations going through the
same switch to access the corporate backbone but you could isolate the
lab and dev hosts so they couldn't talk to each other. It allows a
single switch to provide isolation and security for multiple subscribers
using the same switch.

Once you get out of the sub-$100 consumer routers, they probably have
more configuration options, like security options to isolate the hosts
on the LAN-side ports (to the frontend switch). For example, the Cisco
861 router supports VLANs (newegg's price $274).
  #6  
Old March 23rd 12, 06:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:32:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:43:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Paul wrote:

Router could be blocking.

Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.

Not true. Some routers have the feature that the intranet hosts
connected to the router can get Internet access but not access to the
other intranet hosts. Just because your family is sharing Internet
access through a router doesn't mean you want your kid getting network
access to your at-home business computer.

If you don't have a strong password to your router that only you know
along with restricting physical access to the router so only you can
access then who knows what the kids have been doing to reset or
reconfigure it. Strong password to limit who can configure the router,
physical access restriction to limit who can reset the router.

While the input side of a router is a switch, many switches can control
inter-port connections. A router, if capable, can permit external-only
connects (from LAN port to WAN port) but block inter-host connects (from
LAN port to LAN port). I now have a low-end Linksys router that doesn't
have that feature but remember a prior D-Link router that did. That way
all my family's hosts would get Internet access but they couldn't get at
my host.


I haven't seen that feature applied to the wired ports on a NAT
router, although it's fairly common to see it applied between wireless
connections and wired connections, which wouldn't apply here.

Do you have a specific example of a common NAT router that has the
capability you described? I'd like to skim through its manual to learn
more about it.

Third party firmware, like dd-wrt, can accomplish it, but I wasn't
assuming the presence of third party firmware in the OP's case.


I no longer have the old and dead D-Link router. The first one burned
out after 2-1/2 years. Routers use convection cooling (no fan) and can
overheat the processor. It was getting flaky on whether the WAN-side
would work or not and it kept getting worse over 2 months until I got
another same model D-Link router which made the problem go away
immediately. That 2nd D-Link router lasted just over 2 years before the
same flakiness cropped up so I wasn't going to get another one.

One of its security settings was to block inter-port access to the
internal hosts. Your intranet hosts couldn't connect to each other. I
replaced with a Linksys router since those had lasted for many more
years at work. Alas, one of the features missing in the Linksys was the
option to block inter-LAN port routing.

It's been way too long since I had the D-Link routers. The Linksys has
been working for 6 years now. When I looked at D-Link's support page
(so I could go find a manual), none of the model numbers stuck out as
what I had before. However, I think you're experienced only with
unmanaged switches: you plop them on a shelf and connect the hosts and
there's no configuration for you do to do. It's a simple and unmanaged
switch. Managed switches lets you configure how that network device
will work. Well, since the frontend to a router is a switch then why
can't a router have a managed switch?


Technically, there's no reason why a cheap consumer grade NAT router
can't have a managed switch, but I suspect the reason they don't is
that it increases the cost and complexity of the product. At least, I
haven't seen one with a managed switch. Your report is the first I've
heard, but we're no closer to discovering what model it was or whether
any current models have the feature (via stock firmware).

From what I recall, the switch (or the one in the router) might support
VLANs (virtual LANs) that allows partitioning a physical network into
multiple logical groups. Devices could belong to one, or more, groups.
That was how you choose which devices could talk to each other. Devices
in one group could not talk directly to devices in another group. The
VLANs were logical groups but treated as separate LANs. You could have
an alpha lab and dev group with their workstations going through the
same switch to access the corporate backbone but you could isolate the
lab and dev hosts so they couldn't talk to each other. It allows a
single switch to provide isolation and security for multiple subscribers
using the same switch.


Yes, third party firmware such as dd-wrt offers VLAN support, which I
hinted at earlier, but I'm not aware of any factory firmware that
exposes that capability through its GUI. Isolation between wireless
and wired clients is fairly common, but I haven't seen isolation
between just the wired clients until I bring new firmware into the
picture.

Once you get out of the sub-$100 consumer routers, they probably have
more configuration options, like security options to isolate the hosts
on the LAN-side ports (to the frontend switch). For example, the Cisco
861 router supports VLANs (newegg's price $274).


I don't think we're talking about that class of hardware.

  #7  
Old March 23rd 12, 11:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul in Houston TX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 726
Default The network path was not found.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:52:05 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

FrankQ wrote:
I set up a small-office/home network with two computers.

Both have the windows firewall off.

They access the internet wia a router with a fireewall.

View workgroup members shows the two computers.

But when I click the remote computer icon I get:

\\Two is not available...
The network path was not found.

What does that mean.

Did it get to the remote computer and not find a path or not find the path
to the remote computer?

I've created similar usenames and passwords on both machines and am logged
in with that username.

Any suggestions?

Router could be blocking.


Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.

Can you ping each other from both ends?


Good question.


My D-Link DI-707P can block traffic from LAN or WAN.
It can block LAN while allowing WAN, or vice versa.
It blocks IP addresses, address ranges, and / or ports.
  #8  
Old March 24th 12, 01:50 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:45:17 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:52:05 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

FrankQ wrote:
I set up a small-office/home network with two computers.

Both have the windows firewall off.

They access the internet wia a router with a fireewall.

View workgroup members shows the two computers.

But when I click the remote computer icon I get:

\\Two is not available...
The network path was not found.

What does that mean.

Did it get to the remote computer and not find a path or not find the path
to the remote computer?

I've created similar usenames and passwords on both machines and am logged
in with that username.

Any suggestions?
Router could be blocking.


Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.

Can you ping each other from both ends?


Good question.


My D-Link DI-707P can block traffic from LAN or WAN.
It can block LAN while allowing WAN, or vice versa.
It blocks IP addresses, address ranges, and / or ports.


None of that applies to this discussion, though.

I just read through the Datasheet
ftp://ftp10.dlink.com/pdfs/products/DI-707P/DI-707P_ds.pdf

and the Quick Installation Guide
ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/di707P/QIG/di-707P_QIG_110.pdf

and the User Manual
ftp://ftp.dlink.de/di/di-707p/documentation/DI-707P_man_en_Manual-110.pdf

and I don't see any mention of the capability to isolate one or more
LAN hosts from other LAN hosts. In other words, this device appears to
incorporate a standard 8-port switch, with one port dedicated to WAN
duties and the remaining 7 ports dedicated to LAN duties. Internally,
they use VLANs to achieve this separation, but they don't expose that
through the GUI.

Am I missing the capability to isolate LAN users from each other?

  #9  
Old March 24th 12, 03:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,810
Default The network path was not found.

Char Jackson wrote:

I don't think we're talking about that class of hardware.


Paul said "router". He didn't mention a price range limitation.
  #10  
Old March 24th 12, 04:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:53:46 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

I don't think we're talking about that class of hardware.


Paul said "router". He didn't mention a price range limitation.


I don't think we're talking about that class of hardware until the OP
comes back and explicitly says so.

We can probably put to bed the idea that the router was blocking
intrahost communications, partly because of a lack of supporting
evidence and partly because it requires things that are somewhat out
of the mainstream, including non-consumer grade hardware and/or 3rd
party firmware. If things like that are in play, it's up to the OP to
say so.

  #11  
Old March 24th 12, 05:21 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul in Houston TX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 726
Default The network path was not found.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:45:17 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:52:05 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

FrankQ wrote:
I set up a small-office/home network with two computers.

Both have the windows firewall off.

They access the internet wia a router with a fireewall.

View workgroup members shows the two computers.

But when I click the remote computer icon I get:

\\Two is not available...
The network path was not found.

What does that mean.

Did it get to the remote computer and not find a path or not find the path
to the remote computer?

I've created similar usenames and passwords on both machines and am logged
in with that username.

Any suggestions?
Router could be blocking.
Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.

Can you ping each other from both ends?
Good question.

My D-Link DI-707P can block traffic from LAN or WAN.
It can block LAN while allowing WAN, or vice versa.
It blocks IP addresses, address ranges, and / or ports.


None of that applies to this discussion, though.

I just read through the Datasheet
ftp://ftp10.dlink.com/pdfs/products/DI-707P/DI-707P_ds.pdf

and the Quick Installation Guide
ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/di707P/QIG/di-707P_QIG_110.pdf

and the User Manual
ftp://ftp.dlink.de/di/di-707p/documentation/DI-707P_man_en_Manual-110.pdf

and I don't see any mention of the capability to isolate one or more
LAN hosts from other LAN hosts. In other words, this device appears to
incorporate a standard 8-port switch, with one port dedicated to WAN
duties and the remaining 7 ports dedicated to LAN duties. Internally,
they use VLANs to achieve this separation, but they don't expose that
through the GUI.

Am I missing the capability to isolate LAN users from each other?


Well how interesting!
No where in the manuals does it show the Firewall.
On mine there is a button labeled "Firewall" between
Filter and SNMP that is not in the manual but in
the machine firmware. It enables Firewall rules
for LAN, WAN, deny, allow, addresses, ports, etc.
My DI screenshot:
http://i42.tinypic.com/11jbtd5.jpg
I don't know how many rules I can have.
At the moment I have two active including denying
192.###.###.### from connecting to this machine.
Also denying a specific WAN address.
  #12  
Old March 24th 12, 05:44 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:21:01 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:45:17 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:52:05 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

FrankQ wrote:
I set up a small-office/home network with two computers.

Both have the windows firewall off.

They access the internet wia a router with a fireewall.

View workgroup members shows the two computers.

But when I click the remote computer icon I get:

\\Two is not available...
The network path was not found.

What does that mean.

Did it get to the remote computer and not find a path or not find the path
to the remote computer?

I've created similar usenames and passwords on both machines and am logged
in with that username.

Any suggestions?
Router could be blocking.
Not likely, and not applicable if both computers are connected to
router's LAN ports. The LAN ports are just a switch, not a router.

Can you ping each other from both ends?
Good question.
My D-Link DI-707P can block traffic from LAN or WAN.
It can block LAN while allowing WAN, or vice versa.
It blocks IP addresses, address ranges, and / or ports.


None of that applies to this discussion, though.

I just read through the Datasheet
ftp://ftp10.dlink.com/pdfs/products/DI-707P/DI-707P_ds.pdf

and the Quick Installation Guide
ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/di707P/QIG/di-707P_QIG_110.pdf

and the User Manual
ftp://ftp.dlink.de/di/di-707p/documentation/DI-707P_man_en_Manual-110.pdf

and I don't see any mention of the capability to isolate one or more
LAN hosts from other LAN hosts. In other words, this device appears to
incorporate a standard 8-port switch, with one port dedicated to WAN
duties and the remaining 7 ports dedicated to LAN duties. Internally,
they use VLANs to achieve this separation, but they don't expose that
through the GUI.

Am I missing the capability to isolate LAN users from each other?


Well how interesting!
No where in the manuals does it show the Firewall.
On mine there is a button labeled "Firewall" between
Filter and SNMP that is not in the manual but in
the machine firmware. It enables Firewall rules
for LAN, WAN, deny, allow, addresses, ports, etc.
My DI screenshot:
http://i42.tinypic.com/11jbtd5.jpg
I don't know how many rules I can have.
At the moment I have two active including denying
192.###.###.### from connecting to this machine.
Also denying a specific WAN address.


That's not going to be able to affect traffic between LAN-connected
hosts. Instead, it deals only with WAN-LAN and LAN-WAN traffic.
There's nothing there about LAN-LAN.

Another clue is that the firewall is IP-based, and the router's LAN
ports don't have or use IP's. They operate at Layer 2 (MAC address)
rather than Layer 3 (IP address).

  #13  
Old March 25th 12, 03:33 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul in Houston TX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 726
Default The network path was not found.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:21:01 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:


Am I missing the capability to isolate LAN users from each other?

Well how interesting!
No where in the manuals does it show the Firewall.
On mine there is a button labeled "Firewall" between
Filter and SNMP that is not in the manual but in
the machine firmware. It enables Firewall rules
for LAN, WAN, deny, allow, addresses, ports, etc.
My DI screenshot:
http://i42.tinypic.com/11jbtd5.jpg
I don't know how many rules I can have.
At the moment I have two active including denying
192.###.###.### from connecting to this machine.
Also denying a specific WAN address.


That's not going to be able to affect traffic between LAN-connected
hosts. Instead, it deals only with WAN-LAN and LAN-WAN traffic.
There's nothing there about LAN-LAN.

Another clue is that the firewall is IP-based, and the router's LAN
ports don't have or use IP's. They operate at Layer 2 (MAC address)
rather than Layer 3 (IP address).


Char is correct. My router cannot block LAN traffic.
I tried which way today and could not do it.
  #14  
Old March 25th 12, 07:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,759
Default The network path was not found.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:33:02 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:21:01 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:


Am I missing the capability to isolate LAN users from each other?
Well how interesting!
No where in the manuals does it show the Firewall.
On mine there is a button labeled "Firewall" between
Filter and SNMP that is not in the manual but in
the machine firmware. It enables Firewall rules
for LAN, WAN, deny, allow, addresses, ports, etc.
My DI screenshot:
http://i42.tinypic.com/11jbtd5.jpg
I don't know how many rules I can have.
At the moment I have two active including denying
192.###.###.### from connecting to this machine.
Also denying a specific WAN address.


That's not going to be able to affect traffic between LAN-connected
hosts. Instead, it deals only with WAN-LAN and LAN-WAN traffic.
There's nothing there about LAN-LAN.

Another clue is that the firewall is IP-based, and the router's LAN
ports don't have or use IP's. They operate at Layer 2 (MAC address)
rather than Layer 3 (IP address).


Char is correct. My router cannot block LAN traffic.
I tried which way today and could not do it.


Thanks, Paul.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2014 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.