PDA

View Full Version : Anyone here know anything about ad hoc wifi networks?



autopilot
2006-06-30, 11:17
I am going out of my mind. I had my SB3 connected in ad hoc mode just fine for months, but now i cant get it to connect. I have tried setting it all up again, but i just can't get it to work. I cant even remember how i did it in the first place.

The truth is, i know little about wireless networks and even less and ad hoc ones. The wierd thing is that the SB3 shows the wifi signal strengh as 90% and my PC is saying that it's conneted. But connected to what? Itself?

Can anyone give me some tips? I have googled and googled but can't find any realy helpful guides, anyone got any links?

mschiff
2006-06-30, 12:36
Unless your wireless network has DHCP enabled to assign IP addresses to the clients, you need to assign a fixed IP address that is in the same subnet. If your SB is not in the same subnet, it will not see anything else on your network.

-- Martin

autopilot
2006-06-30, 14:38
How do i know if DHCP is set up and where do i look to see if it is? I'm completely lost here now!

And how do i manually sett up a wireless network? I can only seem to find the wizard.

JJZolx
2006-06-30, 14:59
How do i know if DHCP is set up and where do i look to see if it is? I'm completely lost here now!

And how do i manually sett up a wireless network? I can only seem to find the wizard.
It's not likely that you're using DHCP unless you installed a DHCP server on the PC.

To get into the network setup, hold down the left-arrow button on the remote, then up/down through the menu. There's a point in the setup after the Squezebox connects to the wireless network, where you have the option of getting an IP address through DHCP, or manually entering an IP address. My guess is that you manually entered one when you set this up. It should be displayed when you get to this step.

autopilot
2006-06-30, 15:15
Ok, as far as i can tell the network is up and running on my PC. I can even connect my PDA to it and browse my shared files.

The SB3 is obviously detecting my nwtwork as it shows the signal strengh as 90% and even find thes SSID of the network. The problem is when i choose the SSID of the network and try to connect it just wont connect to it.

It been two days now. I am now repeatedly banging my head against my desk, but that not helping either.

I am begining to think it must be faulty.

ChrisOwens
2006-06-30, 16:19
Well, don't bang your head against the desk!

Let's start with the easy stuff:

You're connected from a Windows PC to an SB3 using an adhoc wireless network, is that correct?

On the PC, you can tell what the IP address of the various by opening up a command prompt, and typing "ipconfig". If you have multiple network adapters (like the wireless and perhaps a connection to a high speed internet service) you may need to do a bit of detective work to figure out which IP is which. Or just tell us both and we'll try to guess.

On the Squeezebox, you can scroll to the "Current Settings" menu. Under that option, the third line down is the last IP address that was successfully assigned.

autopilot
2006-07-01, 11:41
You're connected from a Windows PC to an SB3 using an adhoc wireless network, is that correct?

No (at least i dont think so).

My adhoc network is runnig, i know this because i have set up a new one (for the 1,000th time) and can connect my PDA to it in ad hoc mode with no problems at all.

The SSID of the network is 'domevans' and this is what my PDA reports it as too. But when i try to connect my SB3 using that SSID it fails to connect.

Also (when the PDA is off) windows also reports my network as being connected. Turning off the SB3 kills that connection. It's as if my SB3 and PC are connected, yet my SB3 does not realise it!

So, if i push left on the SB3 too the first menu i get these options - 'Set up networking', 'view current settings', 'connect to squeeze network' AND i also have the option to 'connect to 169.254.158.108'???

I am not sure where that forth option came from. Until now i have only had 3 options in that menu. I am sure i never entered that IP in for slimserver, i dont know where the SB3 came up with it. I have done IPconfig /all and that IP address does not come up - so is it wrong? where did it come from?

Anyway, trying to connect to that IP also always fails.

I have also tried the IP adresses IPconfig comes up with, but none of them work either

Where now? Right now, i would just LOVE to see the 'can't connect to slimserver' message, but i cant even get that far!

Please please help. Anymore of this and i will end up in the funny farm.

autopilot
2006-07-01, 12:06
I have done a factory reset (again), and no longer get the option to connect to the squeezenet work or that random IP address that apeared. Reetered the SSID for the 1,000,000,000th time but still no joy.

Well **** it!, after 3 days of getting absolutly nowhere, i am about to throw the towel in. It's just not worth the pain and time. If my crappy PDA will connect, why should a stae of the art SB3 not be able too? It seems to me that SB3 is at fault OR i am doing something fundementally wrong.

As i am not 100% sure it's faulty, RMAing to Scan computers could mean i have to pay the insured postage 2 ways and an inspection fee. I cant afford a risk like that.

Shame, i really enjoyed my SB3 will it lasted. If anyone has any final ideas (unlikely it seems), please let me know. If i have not got it working by tomorrow, i'm chucking it on eBay.

JJZolx
2006-07-01, 12:17
Shame, i really enjoyed my SB3 will it lasted. If anyone has any final ideas (unlikely it seems), please let me know. If i have not got it working by tomorrow, i'm chucking it on eBay.
Why not pick up a fairly inexpensive wireless router and give up on the ad hoc approach?

pfarrell
2006-07-01, 12:18
JJZolx wrote:
> It's not likely that you're using DHCP unless you installed a DHCP
> server on the PC.

This is technically not true.
Most 'cable modems' and wireless adaptors provide DHCP servers.
It lets most people use them with no understanding of
anything about TCP/IP or DHCP. It usually works
great.

But when it goes wrong, it is hard to debug without
something like Ethereal


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

autopilot
2006-07-01, 12:33
Why not pick up a fairly inexpensive wireless router and give up on the ad hoc approach?

A good point, but i cant aford he 60 or quid right now. It worked before, as does my PDA.

I just remembered something - about a work or two ago, i came home to find my SB3 was displaying a message saying "Update complete - resetting...". It did not reset so i turned it off at the wall and it worked just fine for a week. It was only after updating to 6.3 that i could not reconnect. Strange, as i thought this only happened after an upgrade of the firmawre via a new SS release.

God this is stange, my PC shows it as being connected fine. How can my SB3 be connected and not-connected at the same time?!?!?

I am a broken man right now!

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-01, 15:45
Can you at least wire it up temporarily to see if that works?

There weren't many people able to assist because not very many people use ad-hoc.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-01, 18:33
I have used ad-hoc. It's by far not the choice of choice, so to speak, but it does work, after a fashion.

Let's go over a few things.

Any address 169.x.x.x means that the device asked DHCP for an address and failed to obtain it. In an ad-hoc network it would be unusual for DHCP to be operating, but, as someone pointed out, not entirely impossible.

Because of the meaning of 169 addresses, an attempt to connect to a 169.x.x.x address is doomed to failure in most "normal" networks. So that one was probably a no-starter.

What is the IP address for your PC?

What O/S are you running on your PC?

Can you wire the SB up to the computer, at least temporarily?

We need these answers before we can proceed to help you.

autopilot
2006-07-02, 02:09
Yes, it's XP (home edition).

Unfortunatly, i dont have an ethernet cable, so i cant test it with a wired connection.

Ipconfig comes up with the following...

Under the "PPP Adaptor Wanadoo:" - 217.135.181.35

And under "Ethernet adaptor wireless network connection:" - 169.254.72.137

It also says DHCP is enabled.

Hope this means something to you!

autopilot
2006-07-02, 02:18
OK, Now i have turned my firewall (zonealarm) back ON it seems to have worked!!!

I am happy, but very confused to say the least. It worked for weeks without zonealarm running, yet now it seems to need it. What on earth is going on??


PS, sorry for the frustrated nature of some of my posts, hope you understand what these three days have done to me. All i wanted to do this weekend was sit in the sun with a beer and listen to a few new albums.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-02, 07:04
Oh ... Windows XP is confusing to me, I gave the one laptop that ran it to my daughter, so I can't check, but I think if you turn zone alarm off it turns the windows firewall back on. And the windows firewall may be blocking some ports that Slim needs.

As I recall, if Slim installs itself when Zone Alarm is running, it tells zone alarm about it's port usage.

If it installs when Windows firewall is running, it tells windows firewall.

So whichever one wasn't running when the install happened won't work.

At least, I think that's how that song goes.

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-02, 07:23
And under "Ethernet adaptor wireless network connection:" - 169.254.72.137

Hmm - isn't this saying that the wireless network is improperly configured and it chose a 169 address?

Although I've never seen that on a PC where the wireless network originates (in the case of ad-hoc).

Michaelwagner
2006-07-02, 07:39
Yeah, that confused me too.

As I understand it, 169 addresses mean "I went to the DHCP server and either couldn't find him or he wouldn't give me an address".

That far it makes sense, because in an ad-hoc network there is no DHCP server.

But how come it works then?

I suppose it's possible that the SB actually took an address in the 169 range. TCP/IP doesn't, IIRC, actually prohibit using 169 addresses ... but I've never tried using it, so I'm not sure.

autopilot
2006-07-02, 08:25
Just to clarify, i did check the XP firewall after disabling ZA but it was still off. And Ipconfig definatly says the DHCP was enabled and running.

I did manage to connect once to the network using a 169... address but stopped working again. Since competely uninstalling zonealarm altogether and rebooting every thing now works 100% perfectly.

I would love to know how ZA managed to balls everything up, even when it was disabled and only a complete uninstall took place.

Also, since doing this my PC is handing out 192... address now. I did not realise ZA could mess with what IP's are issued.

It's odd that my PDA managed to connect with no issues, even with a 169... IP. Stranger still was that i never added my PDA to the trusted zone, which should not have happened, yet the SB3 would not connect with it added or removed. On top of that, my PDA connected fine with a 169 IP, i even checked once it was connected and it was 169, no mistake.

All this because of bloody Zone Alarm. I don't no what it was playing at, really strange.

There is no way i am ever using ZA again. Suggestions for an alternative are welcome.

Anyway, i am now listening to the new Zuton's album and drinking a nice cold beer (it's very hot here in the UK at the moment) Cheers :)

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-02, 09:49
Sounds like you got things sorted out.


I would love to know how ZA managed to balls everything up, even when it was disabled and only a complete uninstall took place.

I was a longtime ZA user but about a year or so ago each successive build was getting more and more unstable. When a new build caused my PC to stop booting, I uninstalled it, banishing it permanently, and installed Sygate. Unfortunately just after that Sygate was shut down by Symantec...

I'm still using Sygate in the hopes that a firewall is just a firewall and doesn't need to be continually updated. But I'd like to find a freeware firewall that's not as bloated as ZA is getting and doesn't bork up my system.

I remember finding a very, very simple freeware one but it looked *too* simple to me.

I'm still looking.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-02, 10:16
I like the firewall in a box approach. Firewall on the first router next to the modem.

I'm still confused as to why Win XP has a firewall on the PC. Do you need to protect yourself from the other people in your house?

On a laptop, I can see it. But a desktop?

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-02, 10:51
I like the firewall in a box approach. Firewall on the first router next to the modem.

I'm still confused as to why Win XP has a firewall on the PC. Do you need to protect yourself from the other people in your house?

On a laptop, I can see it. But a desktop?

More to prevent outbound access. Inbound access is effectively handled by an external box, but if a rogue program requests access a firewall box would happily allow the traffic since a LAN client requested it.

IMHO a software firewall without outbound program access controls is useless.

I agree, hardware firewalls are more robust, but it's difficult to configure one for outbound program access and such boxes are neither cheap nor simple.

JJZolx
2006-07-02, 10:53
Yeah, that confused me too.

As I understand it, 169 addresses mean "I went to the DHCP server and either couldn't find him or he wouldn't give me an address".

That far it makes sense, because in an ad-hoc network there is no DHCP server.

But how come it works then?

I suppose it's possible that the SB actually took an address in the 169 range. TCP/IP doesn't, IIRC, actually prohibit using 169 addresses ... but I've never tried using it, so I'm not sure.
I think that's exactly how it's working. Both the Squeezebox and the wifi card in the PC are configured to pull an IP address through DHCP (no doubt the default on the PC) and both self-assign themselves 169.x.x.x addresses in the same subnet. And it works.

Moreover, this is exactly how it's supposed to work. There was actually a reason for self-assigned IP addresses - they weren't meant to be a red flag that something had failed in the IP address assignment.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-02, 10:57
Ah, that makes sense. You might be right - 2 devices that self-assign in the same address range might well talk properly, if they self-assign to different addresses but in the same subnet.

How odd.

dean
2006-07-02, 11:33
On Jul 2, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Michaelwagner wrote:
> Ah, that makes sense. You might be right - 2 devices that self-
> assign in
> the same address range might well talk properly, if they self-
> assign to
> different addresses but in the same subnet.
>
> How odd.
Not that odd. :)

There's actually a standard for self-assigning addresses and a
special range reserved (169.254.x.x) for exactly this purpose. It's
called "link-local" addressing and is enabled by default on Windows,
Mac and Squeezebox2/3.

Gory details here:
<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3927.txt>

bathyscaaf
2006-07-02, 12:41
Zone Alarm works great for me...but I did have to tell it to allow the IP of the SB3 and to allow SlimServer permission to talk back. My guess is that you set ZoneAlarm correctly, and when you disablrd it the Windows Firewall didn't have those exceptions.

Any software firewall is going to ask you what can come in or go out...ZoneAlarm is the best free firewall out there. If you're willing to buy one(software, that is), TrendMicro (but it's pricey).

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-02, 15:13
Any software firewall is going to ask you what can come in or go out.

Some of the very simple ones I've found don't. Also I'm not sure if the Windows XP one does.