Vista - Interesting Dilemna - 2 network adapters

One usb ethernet adapter for internet connection through an old router, one for a Linksys Wireless G router hard wired to remote security cameras sums up the problem where one cancels the other out.

This is a problem for XP, Vista, and even 7 beta while the primary system still runs XP. The dsl connection is through an old dsl setup using a usb adapter while the Linksys pci adapter card or usb adapter once installed becomes the default network adapter.

The wireless router itself is plugged with the RJ-45 ethernet adapter directly into the main controller/dvr box for live wireless feed to the main XP system or this one as a second means along with direct plug in to a tv set in the room where the main box is located.

In XP, Vista, and even the later 7 beta the same problem of running two adapters without conflict is the main question needing a working solution. This thread is intended to tax the most network familar people here.

The landlord runs the main XP system with eventual plans to upgrade to Vista while this system serves as a testing machine a good deal of the time explaining multiple OSs as a rule. The router and adapters are in working order not seeing any defects while canceling the original dsl adapter out when installed. That takes out the online connection in the process. Not good!

Every NT-flavour OS ranging back into the early 90s is easily capable of dealing with multiple network interfaces. When a packet needs to be sent out, the OS looks at the route table, picks the most specific route based on the destination, and forwards the packet appropriately. You could put 10 different NICs on 10 different networks, with 100 IPs each, just for fun, and it would all work. Architecture is not the problem.

What you might be experiencing is some USB-level issue where an interface is literally knocked out when another USB device starts doing something specific, the way that multiple USB devices might draw too much power if they're operating concurrently for example. Strictly speaking, that's not a network layer problem.

Can you expand on the symptoms?

What does the route table look like when it's all working? (route print >routes.txt)

What does IPCONFIG /ALL say when it's working? And when it's not?

The main problem seen right off is once Windows detects the new adapter the first one disappears in the device manager and you won't reach your home page with IE since that's the only browser used by the owner. The pci adapter was the first tried out while the main IE connection is through a usb to ethernet phone type adapter out to the older hard wired type dsl router. RJ-11

The Wireless G pci card sees a flip up type rubber antennae tried first on the main system with the usb adapter tried out on this one. The host pc is totally separate seeing a direct connect by nik card on that. Believe me it's the old school stuff for usb 1.1(98) seeing one update only for XP and usb 2.0!

Surprisingly the 98 drivers still work on the 32bit Vista or 7 while the software for that old router won't even go on Vista. The problem is this entire mess is not set up as anything more then your typical residential gateway where the wireless router/adapters are being added into the mix for a closed circuit type system not a home network there.

To give you a better idea you first have to see the type of security system being a more basic setup without a builtin display or monitor included. The Svat system can be seen at SVAT Electronics - WIRED SYSTEMS (DIY) - CV0204DVR

The Wireless G type pci adapter is seen at Linksys by Cisco Wireless-G PCI Adapter WMP54G with the router seen at Linksys by Cisco Wireless-G Linux Broadband Router WRT54GL

Those are the exact same you would find at your local Walmart as well being where they were bought according to the tech support at Swat. This is where the problem originated by them advising to connect a wireless router for pc application to substitute for any additional direct hard wiring from the dvr to pc.

Even when disabling the pci adapter in the device manager the online connection is still unavailable. For solving any extra demand on the usb bus while trying this out with the usb adapter instead a separate hub provided everything needed there.

The pair of adapters used together are still placed under network adapters in the DM but seeing only one made default. The original adapter/drivers made for 98 later seeing a single XP update available lack network support to start with being written for residential application only.

The host pc with the nik card and software maintains the router while the effected system is a satelite extension using the usb ethernet adapter only. The build here is in a different situation(multiboot) also being a satelite presently.

Sounds to me like you don't actually have a network-level problem - yet. Instead, you can't seem to get two NICs installed and functional at the same time. I'm unclear on the Device Manager situation - the first sentence says the "first one disappears", but later on you seem to imply that they're both still visible in DM but one is "made default".

What exactly do you mean by "made default"?

My suggestion is to find newer drivers, buy another NIC (they're dirt cheap), or do whatever it is you have to do to get both NICs installed and functional at the same time, as in showing up with their own individual IP address when you issue an IPCONFIG /ALL command. Only then does the network configuration come into it, once you've actually got two active interfaces.

The next obstacle might be the routing. The DSL connection to the internet functions as the default gateway, which means all packets destined to IPs not on the local network (192.168.0.x or whatever) would be handed off to the DSL router for them to handle them appropriately.

The fact that you want two separate NICs suggests that the same machine will be on two separate networks (it doesn't make sense to have multiple interfaces on the same network in this context). For example, you're aiming to have one NIC function as 192.168.0.2, with the DSL router at 192.168.0.1 acting as the default gateway, and then you want a completely separate NIC with a different IP on a different subnet to communicate with the DVR device.

Why? Why do you actually want two interfaces? Why not just hook up everything into the same 192.168.0.x internal network? I mean you CAN have multiple interfaces, and thus multiple networks, but why?

Can you draw a simple diagram perhaps showing the IPs?

When the WiFi card was pulled you would then see that item under the one for the actual dsl connection by way of usb. The best way is actually the simplest as far as how that goes.

"cameras----DVR/Base----Linksys router - wireless signal - pc with card/usb adapter----dsl router"
(Note 4 dashes = hard wiring, single dash = WiFi)

The landlord didn't want hard wiring between the dvr/base direct to the XP system where the tech support advised a wireless router to start with unaware of the apparent clash with the older dsl setup. Without either plugged in and going to look in the device manager you will then see both items seen where you can right click to disable one to re-enable the other being the dsl adapter.



That's the old type of usb ethernet phone adapter seen there for use with the dsl hub seen at 2Wire.com: Support

It really does sound more like a driver issue than a networking one. Only once both of those interfaces are active and visible in DM at the same time will network configuration become a potential concern.

If you're using ancient drivers, that's the first thing I'd suggest updating. If that doesn't help, The Landlord might just have to pony up for a new NIC. Presumably that'll be cheaper for him than having you spend your days trying to make some ancient bit of kit with drivers from the mid-90s behave itself.

The problem is will be that older connection won't be replaced anytime in this lifetime! I've already made some observations about not being able to use the current router's software on Vista or 7 since it simply will not install after repeat attempts.

The only update from the original 98 compatible driver set was for XP back in 2002! One look at the support site for an update will clearly show just how "obselete" it is and why the cable service will soon be out of someone's else's hands entirely realizing at least that or another "much faster, newer" dsl service by another provider while they can be contempt with the old stuff I guess.

The original drivers were written strictly for residential gateways without networking but shared connection through the central hub. With both types out or unplugged you see both items visible in the dm while one will disappear when one is in use. Even disabling one(newer) seems to hamper the first.

I have the router's IP address already while the fact that the first is pushed with anything new added on is where the main problem arises for configuring them to work side by side. Now you see why this is not any simple problem with any quick solution seen so far.

Yes, I agree it's a problem, but I'd advise you against accepting it as your problem if you're getting paid for this work. The diagnosis seems clear - the hardware is very old and it would be impractical to invest further effort into attempting to overcome the interoperability problems caused by its obsolete drivers in a modern networking environment. Given the level of business reliance on this equipment and the resultant potential for ongoing productivity losses, a management-level review of the situation would be expected to authorise the funding of an updated internet link solution.

Having won my game of "corporate BS bingo", I'm now going to go off and cry with my face in my open hands.

Seriously though. Don't take c##p from management luddites

Well first off this isn't a cliental type circumstance but someone taking advice from the security camera company's garbage tech support. Even then the advice was backwards. "connect the router to the system and the adapter to the dvr." Who the what?

I had to advise taking an old boat and seeing that setup with the adapter rather then trying to see that ever working on the main system(XP Home now seeing SP3). The Vanguard camera setup without dvr prior to that used a usb adapter for live feed without problem.