Connected but not really?

On 23 Mar 2007 08:47:16 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in :

WEP is too insecure to be of much value. Strong recommend using WPA instead.

Ignore that advice. Enter all WEP keys in _hex_ to avoid problems -- different products make the conversion to hex differently, which all too often results in key mismatch problems.

Probable WEP key mismatch. If you must use (ugh!) WEP, enter all keys in _hex_ (including the router).

Because you're not really connected -- Windows lies.

It can be connected to the router, but in your case, if the machine is not getting an IP from the router's DHCP server, then applications such as IE will not be able to access the Internet.

If you go to the Command Prompt on the Windows O/S and enter the command IPCONFIG /ALL and it shows the IP as zero or the IP starts with 169., then machine is not using an IP on the router that's going to allow the computer to access the Internet, although the machine is connected to the router wirelessly.

As John Navas said, XP lied and should not have shown that I am connected to the network as it is "meaningless". My definition of connected is that you are (well the computer in question, anyway), are in the same net, having the IP address class of that network (or if there is a router that bridge two separate networks which bridge two network classes). BTW, I did ipconfig /release, /renew, /all and it did not get an IP, and yet Windows still says I am connected afterwards.

That's ridiculous that XP lied. All it could have shown you was that machine had a connection on the wireless side with good signal strength or not between the wireless router and the card.

It cannot shown you that the machine had no valid connection to the router that would allow it to use a DHCP IP from the DHCP server or a static IP on the router.

What does the have to do with the fact that the machine is not getting an IP from the router via DHCP or using a static IP on the router, due to some kind of mis-configuration of the wireless card or router in someway, or something is defective?

The wireless machine can have 100% signal strength with the router, but that doesn't mean its got a valid connection that will allow it to access other machines on the LAN or access the WAN/Internet.

Again, the machine is connected to the router on the wireless side and XP is showing that you have a connection wirelessly, from a wireless standpoint.

Windows XP did show you that you didn't get an IP when you did the IPConfig commands and the machine has no valid connection, by either returning zeros for the IP or the IP starts with 169.

If the machine had gotten the 169.xxx.xxx.xxx, that IP would allow the machine to access other machines on the LAN, but the IP is not going to allow the machine to access the Internet, because it's not using a valid IP on the router.

If the machine gets the 169, it's an indication there is trouble, because the machine timed out in trying to obtain an IP from the DHCP server on the network and the O/S assigned that IP to the NIC.

On the other hand, if you get no IP or it's zero, then the machine cannot access another machine on the LAN, nor can it access the Internet.

Those are the conditions when the machine cannot access the LAN or WAN/Internet due to an IP assignment issue.

XP is not lying to you. It shows that you have good signal strength. It's up to you to decipher whether or not the machine has a valid connection that will allow it to access the Internet, by using the proper tools such as IPconfig.

The machine can't get an IP from the router and I suspect that the machine couldn't use a manually configure NIC using a static IP on the router either, because of mis-configuration of the wireless NIC, the router or something is defective between the two.

"Mr. Arnold" hath wroth:

I'll agree mostly with John. XP lies. I've seen it happen many times and in many different ways. The basic problem is that Microslofts definition of "connected" is quite different from what would seem obvious. By the current MS definition and status indication, you are considered connected when the client and access point have finished the initial negotiation and exchange of SSID, but before any encryption, authentication, or authorization takes place. The causual user would assume that "connected" means that the system is ready to use. This is not the case.

Had MS used the term "associated" instead of "connected", the whole bag of sematic worms would not be a problem. Associated merely means that the AP and client have recognized each other and that additional steps are required before the connection is ready to use. It would also have been nice if MS used the term "Ready" when the wireless was ready to use.

The connection progress indication is also prone to errors, which may have been the case here. I've seen the WZC and NDIS5 drivers show that there is no connection, but I'm merilly surfing the web via wireless. I've also seen the reverse, where it indicates that all is well, but wireless is dead. A reboot usually cures the problem except when it's caused by a broken driver.

I've also induced a wrong indication by tinkering with the various wireless enable/disable mechanisms. Most laptops have:

1. An on/off slide or push button switch.
2. I BIOS based on/off switch.
3. A keyboard on/off combination.
4. Some mechanism for putting the card in power save mode.
5. On/off in the system tray icon.
6. On/off in the Control Panel -> Network -> Wireless applet. Many times, I've turned it on/off from a random succession of these and caused either the card, driver, or indicator to produce insane results. I've also seen wrong indications when the laptop goes out of hibernate. Eventually, it will figure out that the access point has long since timed out as the client has driven away, and that it's not really still connected.

MS also compounded the error by not offering any meaningless connection progress indication. For example, a failure to properly exchange encryption keys results in "Aquiring IP Address" which is both misleading and wrong. When it eventually complains about "limited connectivity" the user is left with no clue as to what went wrong. In the traditional "follow the leader" manner, most wireless device manufacturers have copied MS's lead and supplied as little useful information as possible. I've been told that it may not be possible to obtain encryption status information from the NDIS5 driver, but I've never bothered to dive into the code and be sure. I doubt it because that information is available with the copious diagnostics available for debugging:

I have read the other parts of your posts.

However, from an old dog's standpoint, I look at a wireless connection like I do a wire connection in regards to a machine using a router, with a machine having a valid connection to the router that's going to allow it to access the Internet.

If the router is using DHCP, then the machine's NIC is going to have valid gateway, subnet and LAN IP(s), along with valid IP(s) to DNS(s).

Or if I am manually using a static IP on the router, then the IP(s) used must be acceptable IP(s) on the router for static IP(s) along with the gateway IP and DNS IP(s).

If using DHCP on the router, I issue Ipconfig /all, and the machine has got valid IP(s) or it doesn't.

If using a static IP on the router, then I try to ping a site. If I can't ping a site, then there is no valid connection that's going to allow the machine to access the Internet.

IMHO, one doesn't need visual indicators to know wired or wireless if a machine has a valid connection that's going to allow Internet access for the machine.

But of course, most job blow users can hardly turn on a computer. They need all the help they can get or be given.

I maintain the same philosophy as the California Dept of Motor Vehicles has toward vehicle lights and indicators. If the light or indicator is present, it must function as expected or you get a citation. I found this out the hard way after getting busted for a mechanical violation. The lights were there, but all the bulbs were either blown or rotted out. Wireless should be the same way. If there's going to be an indicator, it has to be functional and work as expected.

I'm a bit more techy than most and prefer a more fine grained indication of connectivity. I want connection progress indicators and fault logging. After all, it is a sequential process and it doesn't take much to simply display the current state. Apparently, this is too much for Microsoft to understand. In Vista, the new and improved equivalent of Wireless Zero Config offers even fewer indications of connection state, but does add some useful netsh diagnostics.

I guess the new philosophy is much like Apple's, if you don't understand the underlying technology, you don't need to know what's happening. Sometimes, I wonder if Microsoft understands it.

Incidentally, I also want a problem called "ready". It displays a huge "WAIT" sign on the screen until the system is ready to use. Then it changes to "READY". That includes interminable boot times, endless background updates, programs that only run on startup, and of course a check if there's internet connectivity for those that use Windoze based PPPoE dialers. Maybe an onscreen traffic light that indicates when it's unsafe to operate (red), busy but usable (yellow), or ready to play (green). Yes, I can run ping from a DOS cmd window to see if things are ready, but I'm getting lazy in my old age and would prefer to have the computah do the work of telling me when it's done with it's housekeeping. I should probably write such a program.