Please, don't kill my WiFi!
John
How to stop ActiveSync from disconnecting WiFi on WM5?
I know, this question was asked 1 year ago
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.pocketpc.activesync&tid=01b3d841-2f5a-4fae-b940-8be0a8058682&cat=en_US_45621a68-06ee-4984-9f5f-0e20528276a4&lang=en&cr=US&sloc=en-us&m=1&p=1
but there were no answer.
I am so frustrated! I wasted the whole day troubleshooting this strange
WiFi disconnection problem. I contacted HP support, my WiFi router
support, tried all kind of settings, read tons of similar complains on the
Web (all without any solution). Some people even suggested
that my iPaq is defective and I should ask HP for a replacement!
Finally I decided that my iPaq is simply incompatible with my router,
so I decided to throw it away (at least put it away for now).
Then, in process of throwing it away, I disconnected ActiveSync
and WiFi started working! Connected it back - WiFi killed again.
Shame to Microsoft for making this behavior behind my back
without saying a word.
Still, the question is: how to disable it? Anything in the registry?
I really must have ActiveSync and WiFi connected at the same time.
Thank you
John
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
the device*, you can't. It's done that way for a good reason, but my
understanding is that WM6 provides a means for this to be disabled because
of the complaints about it. However, you can't somehow get that into your
WM5 device.
How many things does Windows Mobile do 'behind your back' that you *don't
want* to hear about or read about in some readme file? No one is going to
document every behavior that the operating system has (it would be thousands
of pages). This wasn't a great choice without some way to allow the
connections, but security-wise, it makes sense to do this.
*Why* do you need to have ActiveSync and WiFi connected at the same time?
Maybe we can find another way to do what you want.
Paul T.
"John" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C7D958D-74EA-4102...@microsoft.com...
John
> system has (it would be thousands of pages).
What thousands of pages? One message box or a notification popup
with one line of explanation and "don't show it again"
check box would be sufficient.
Otherwise there were no way to find what happened,
so I wasted the whole day,
bothered innocent people at HP and my router vendor
thinking that dropped connection was their problem.
> but security-wise, it makes sense to do this.
Not in my case. Anyway, security have to be provided
by means of warnings and options, rather that brute denial of service.
> *Why* do you need to have ActiveSync and WiFi connected at the
> same time?
Well, there are two reasons.
First, I don't have separate chargers, so I always have all my PDAs
connected through USB, so they charge and I use them at the same time.
Second, my PC does not have WiFi, so I hoped to connect PC to WiFi
through the PDA. I know it is not supported out of the box,
but I saw some posts, that it may be possible to setup proxy
servers on the PDA and browse the Web and check E-Mails that way.
Thank you
John
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
and when you start building devices, you can handle it, but the process of
actually integrating a bunch of hardware with many MB of operating system
code means that trying to specify at a low-level everything that will happen
in every situation is impossible.
If it doesn't drop the WiFi connection it *is* less-secure. That's just the
way it is. It's not the right thing for your one situation, but that
doesn't mean that there's no security issue. As for "security have to be
provided by means of warnings and options" is clearly not the case. The
most-secure device is one that does the right thing and does *not* allow the
user to choose to run that email attachment or allow that ActiveX control on
the Web site. An option to allow it is the friendliest way to do it,
certainly, which is no doubt why it's been changed in later versions.
Well, the gateway components are not in the average PDA (and that scenario
is exactly what the security measure is trying to prevent, in the other
direction, by the way). In fact, all traffic from the PDA to the "Internet"
will go through ActiveSync, if it's connected, not the other way. You might
be able to find some way to get something to work, but you'd be much better
off just buying a cheap wireless card for the PC. Here's one:
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=cat3&product_code=344140
Your scenario was not contemplated for ActiveSync and, even if you can sort
of get it to work, it's not going to be 'right'.
Paul T.
"John" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08DA28E1-4D33-4A9D...@microsoft.com...
John
> and when you start building devices, you can handle it, but the process of
> actually integrating a bunch of hardware with many MB of operating system
> code means that trying to specify at a low-level everything that will happen
> in every situation is impossible.
Not everything, but important actions, such as forceful disconnection
certainly must be shown to the user. For example, when my Zone Alarm
wants to block a connection, it does notify me (unless I told it not to).
Otherwise, there is absolutely no way to tell what happened.
On iPaqs the problem manifests itself in the following way:
status suddenly changes from Connected to "Driver not loaded".
That's it. No other hints. On HTC devices, IP address simply disappears,
but status remains "Connected".
If you search for '"Driver not loaded" iPaq' on google or HP forums
you will find hundreds of screams for help. No all of them may be
explained by ActiveSync, but many may. People trying
all kind of thing: soft reset, hard reset, removing battery for 30 seconds
some even sent devices to HP for replacement, but, of course,
the replaced device has the same problem: "Driver not loaded"
after a second or two.
No matter how many MB of operating system code you have,
this is not the way to treat customers. I would understand if this
would have been a bug, but this was a deliberate (and malicious) decision.
> If it doesn't drop the WiFi connection it *is* less-secure. That's just the
> way it is.
Yes, when my PC is connected to Internet it *is* less-secure
than when it is not connected. That's just the way it is.
But if some idiot in marketing will decide that Windows
should shut itself down once I plugged in network cable,
what do you thing user's reaction will be?
> The most-secure device is one that does the right thing and does *not* allow the
> user to choose to run that email attachment or allow that ActiveX control on
> the Web site.
On the other hand I heard opinion that too restrictive and too cumbersome
security is actually less secure because it forces users to
find work around or disable it completely. That's why ActiveX and
E-mail attachments are never disabled completely, but user is given
a choice to disable them (by the way, I have ActiveX disabled).
> Well, the gateway components are not in the average PDA (and that scenario
> is exactly what the security measure is trying to prevent, in the other
> direction, by the way). In fact, all traffic from the PDA to the "Internet"
> will go through ActiveSync, if it's connected, not the other way.
Well, I will poke around. Once I understood what actually happens, I will
know where to look.
Again, before I thought that my iPaq is simply not compatible with my router,
which I have no way to fix.
> You might be able to find some way to get something to work, but you'd be much better
> off just buying a cheap wireless card for the PC.
It is funny. I did consider this option, but I decided against it not
because of price,
but because of security. As I understood, third party WiFi cards will
require third party drivers.
I am tired of buggy third party device drivers, blue screens, background
processes,
tray icons and system slow-downs.
So, I will spend some more time trying to pass through the PDA
or I will have to buy a WiFi bridge.
Thank you
John
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
understandable why it is the way it is.
The error with the forums that you reference (with people sending devices
back, doing hard reset after hard reset or whatever), is the lack of support
answers, which you can't put on Microsoft. How long did it take for someone
in the thread you referenced in your first message to get a reply? Looks
like 9 hours to me, give or take a time zone, until the reply came back
"Yes, that's intentional." I don't work for Microsoft, of course, but that
seems like a reasonable period of time to get a fairly authoritative answer;
it should certainly have stopped the person from looking for a setting or a
broken piece of hardware.
Microsoft was, no doubt, reacting to enterprise customer requests to assure
that the devices, which have to be plugged into the desktop PCs at the
office to sync are not also connected to Starbucks on the corner,
potentially bypassing whatever security is at the periphery of the company
network. Yes, they were draconian about what they did (same with many other
annoyances that popped up with WM5 including no more WiFi sync), but you're
saying that the product is crap because there's a security restriction that
prevents bridging of two networks!
If the only way you're willing to have things work is by using your Pocket
PC as a gateway, then I do wish you good luck and hope you'll post the
results back, but I don't think you're going to be satisfied with it,
whereas I'd be very surprised if you couldn't reach a satisfactory
conclusion by adding a WiFi adapter to the PC.
Paul T.
"John" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE511066-9D52-4B7A...@microsoft.com...
John
> understandable why it is the way it is.
Understanding does not mean forgiving. It is understandable why people
write viruses and send spam. It is also understandable why idiots
in marketing make short sighted decisions to fix emerging problems
without thinking how much it will cost to users.
The question is how to prosecute those who wastes our time and money?
> The error with the forums that you reference (with people sending devices
> back, doing hard reset after hard reset or whatever), is the lack of support
> answers, which you can't put on Microsoft.
Yes, I can. Again, I think that showing a message box or popup notification
saying something like "ActiveSync connected. Disconnecting WiFi" would have
costed MS just few lines of code and saved me the whole day wasted
troubleshooting the problem.
> How long did it take for someone in the thread you referenced in your
> first message to get a reply? Looks like 9 hours to me, give or take a time
> zone, until the reply came back "Yes, that's intentional."
No. I posted on this forum (ActiveSync) only after I realized that it is
ActiveSync, which is causing the problem. Before that I googled for "Driver
not loaded",
which is the only error message in iPaq, found hundreds of messages without
solution, posted on HP forum, was told that this is a hardware problem and I
should
send device for replacement, also contacted my router support without any
success.
Nobody, nothing ever hinted at ActiveSync.
Only when I decided to throw away my iPaq, I disconnected ActiveSync,
then decided to make one more WiFi connection retry and understood what
happens.
Then it was a matter of minutes to search for "ActiveSync disconnect WiFi"
and find that this is by design. But, again, it was not clear whether this
is hard coded
or can be disabled somehow. Only then I decided to post to this forum
expecting to find some little known registry entry or IOCTL code to disable
this
behavior. And, instead of getting an answer, I just got repetition of what I
already knew:
it is by design and it is for your own good! Who does not hate when he is told
that this is for his own good. Sorry, I am getting emotional.
> whereas I'd be very surprised if you couldn't reach a satisfactory
> conclusion by adding a WiFi adapter to the PC.
Again, no way. No crappy half-baked third party drivers on my PC! I am tired
of reinstalling Windows after installing some junk.
John
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
>> I'm not arguing that it's right the way that it is, simply that it's
>> understandable why it is the way it is.
>
> Understanding does not mean forgiving. It is understandable why people
> write viruses and send spam. It is also understandable why idiots
> in marketing make short sighted decisions to fix emerging problems
> without thinking how much it will cost to users.
> The question is how to prosecute those who wastes our time and money?
Easy. Don't buy another Pocket PC. Buy something else, if you can find
something you like.
>> The error with the forums that you reference (with people sending devices
>> back, doing hard reset after hard reset or whatever), is the lack of
>> support
>> answers, which you can't put on Microsoft.
>
> Yes, I can. Again, I think that showing a message box or popup
> notification
> saying something like "ActiveSync connected. Disconnecting WiFi" would
> have
> costed MS just few lines of code and saved me the whole day wasted
> troubleshooting the problem.
Sure, in this one case. You ever write code for a living? There are
hundreds to thousands of assumptions in everything you do. You have a user
in mind when you write it and that user wants to do certain types of things,
knows some set of things, and maybe has some set of applications, other
hardware, etc. Yes, they made a mistake in one of their assumptions, but
it's a very minor mistake and affects only a relatively small fraction of
all users. You weren't the guy they had in mind. It's silly to complain
that Ferarri doesn't have a big trunk; you're not the target user. It's
silly to complain that your new Corvette has daytime running lights because
you like to leave the key in the car and in the on position when it's in the
garage; they didn't plan for that. These are obviously extreme examples,
but your problem is a tiny, minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things
and I'd gladly have it stay just the way it is in your device now forever,
if we could get WiFi ActiveSync back.
>> How long did it take for someone in the thread you referenced in your
>> first message to get a reply? Looks like 9 hours to me, give or take a
>> time
>> zone, until the reply came back "Yes, that's intentional."
>
> No. I posted on this forum (ActiveSync) only after I realized that it is
> ActiveSync, which is causing the problem. Before that I googled for
> "Driver
> not loaded",
> which is the only error message in iPaq, found hundreds of messages
> without
> solution, posted on HP forum, was told that this is a hardware problem and
> I
> should
> send device for replacement, also contacted my router support without any
> success.
> Nobody, nothing ever hinted at ActiveSync.
That's an iPAQ thing. Microsoft did not write that message; HP did. HP
made a mistake there, too, obviously.
> Only when I decided to throw away my iPaq, I disconnected ActiveSync,
> then decided to make one more WiFi connection retry and understood what
> happens.
> Then it was a matter of minutes to search for "ActiveSync disconnect WiFi"
> and find that this is by design. But, again, it was not clear whether this
> is hard coded
> or can be disabled somehow. Only then I decided to post to this forum
> expecting to find some little known registry entry or IOCTL code to
> disable
> this
> behavior. And, instead of getting an answer, I just got repetition of what
> I
> already knew:
> it is by design and it is for your own good! Who does not hate when he is
> told
> that this is for his own good. Sorry, I am getting emotional.
Reread my first reply in this thread to you. You asked, "How to stop
ActiveSync from disconnecting WiFi on WM5?". My reply was, "If you mean,
how do I stop an ActiveSync connection from breaking WiFi *on
the device*, you can't. It's done that way for a good reason, but my
understanding is that WM6 provides a means for this to be disabled because
of the complaints about it. However, you can't somehow get that into your
WM5 device."
>> whereas I'd be very surprised if you couldn't reach a satisfactory
>> conclusion by adding a WiFi adapter to the PC.
>
> Again, no way. No crappy half-baked third party drivers on my PC! I am
> tired
> of reinstalling Windows after installing some junk.
>
> John
Huh? You've already got third-party drivers on your PC, unless you've got a
really low-end PC with ordinary SuperVGA, etc. You may only have drivers
that came on the original Windows disk (although Windows update has probably
updated those, too), but not all of those were written by MS (who you've
been attacking throughout this thread as incompetent ;-) I don't think I've
*ever* reinstalled Windows as a result of installing a driver, even one I
was working on myself and it was still being debugged. If you've had to do
this multiple times, please create a Web page that lists the
hardware/drivers that have caused you that problem, because I'm sure people
would like to avoid them! Seriously, if you have a clean Windows install,
installing a driver for a USB stick isn't going to break things; such a
driver doesn't even talk directly to hardware.
Paul T.
John
> something you like.
You wrote yourself earlier, that MS listen only to enterprise customers.
I am a small guy. Nobody cares whether I will or will not buy a Pocket PC.
Also nobody cares that I wasted a whole day (I guess many readers of this
forum will actually laugh at me).
But I hope that HP will count how many support hours they had to waste on this
issue and how many perfectly good devices were replaced and send MS a bill.
May be then they will listen.
> There are hundreds to thousands of assumptions in everything you do.
That's, obviously, an exaggeration.
> Yes, they made a mistake in one of their assumptions, but
> it's a very minor mistake and affects only a relatively small fraction of
> all users. You weren't the guy they had in mind.
Why small? Many PDAs normally sit in cradles on work desks and ActiveSync
is constantly on. Then you try WiFi and is does not work. This generates
those hundreds of complains, which you find on google and forums.
And most people don't bother posting on forums.
> It's silly to complain that Ferarri doesn't have a big trunk
Wrong comparison. Broken connection is more like abrupt
shutting down the ignition and the engine. Most modern cars will, at least,
show an engine check light. MS didn't show anything.
I remember when Prius had the same problem, they made a recall.
When MS does it, you defend them and say that this is for my own good.
> That's an iPAQ thing. Microsoft did not write that message; HP did. HP
> made a mistake there, too, obviously.
Well, so was my initial conclusion. In fact, I posted message on HP forum
"Fix broken WiFi driver". But now I see that I was too quick to blame them.
MS unloaded their driver without warning, so they, probably, had no way
of knowing why that happened. I also tried on iMate. They have even
worse error reporting: they display IP address for few seconds,
then it disappears. That's it. No other messages.
So I will, probably, apologize to HP. This is not their fault, my MSs.
> Reread my first reply in this thread to you. You asked, "How to stop
> ActiveSync from disconnecting WiFi on WM5?". My reply was, "If you mean,
> how do I stop an ActiveSync connection from breaking WiFi *on
> the device*, you can't.
Well, I understood that you dont know it. I wonder whether anybody else does.
Anyway would do: registry change, driver patch, anything.
Unlike my PC, I am not afraid of screwing up my WM.
> Huh? You've already got third-party drivers on your PC, unless you've got a
> really low-end PC with ordinary SuperVGA, etc.
No. Most (or all) built-in peripheral devices are handles by NVIDIA drivers,
which I learned to live with. Plus few USB drivers.
So, if I can handle WiFi by an external bridge without installing any drivers
this would be great.
> were written by MS (who you've been attacking throughout this thread as incompetent ;-)
I never said "incompetent", I said "malicious".
They would be incompetent if they did it accidentally, but they did it
intentionally.
> *ever* reinstalled Windows as a result of installing a driver, even one I
> was working on myself
Again, wrong comparison. When I write a driver, I know it's modules
and it's registry settings and make provisions to prevent system boot failure,
so cleaning up takes minutes, not hours.
But modern third party drivers (and apps) install many megabytes of cheaply
written stuff, which modifies the system in unpredictable ways
and serious reverse engineering is necessary to completely cleanup
the system afterwards (remember Sony rootkit?)
> please create a Web page that lists the
> hardware/drivers that have caused you that problem, because I'm sure people
> would like to avoid them!
Forums already full of horror stories. Who need more web pages?
May be lawyers to sue me?
My own last horror story was with Samsung display driver.
After installing it my XP refused to boot (even in Safe and VGA mode!)
After I recovered, I searched forums and saw that it was a mistake to
install it
on the first place.
> Seriously, if you have a clean Windows install,
> installing a driver for a USB stick isn't going to break things; such a
> driver doesn't even talk directly to hardware.
Well, may be. I will try bridge first.
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
way and it may well be that *nothing* you do will have any effect on MS with
respect to this.
No, there are hundreds of thousands of assumptions in everything. Really, I
mean it.
Hundreds of complaints over the total size of the Smart Phone and Pocket PC
market is a tiny number. Sorry, it just is. You are thinking like one guy.
I don't like many of the decisions that MS makes, but most of them I do
*understand*. If it takes an investment of $10,000 to fix this problem, it
won't pay microsoft to fix it. Let's say there are 200 people who ran into
this and never will buy another Pocket PC as long as they live. I don't
know what the license cost per device is to Microsoft, but let's say $20, as
I think that's in the right general range. Total loss of revenue to MS?
$4000. $10,000 > $4,000. No sale.
Seriously, there's *no way to do it*, reasonably. The device OEM *could* do
it (they have source code). Microsoft could do it (they have source code).
*Maybe* someone in the hacker crowd could do it (they'd have to recreate
ActiveSync, though, I think, and I don't think that's practical), but it's
*not* a registry entry...really!
Paul T.
"John" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A994487-34A4-43FC...@microsoft.com...
Doubledare0511
http://www.airscanner.com/downloads/airfix/airfix.html, they have an
application that can let you sync and still have your internet access and
it's for free. I have not tried this myself.
I can see Paul point, but when MS removed the items that home/single user
wanted and where using and which made this worth using it just show that they
do not care what personal user are doing, and this in turns has the phone
companies complain they are lossing sales because people do not want the new
items taht do not have these functions, which then stops them wanting improve
there devices. This is just like the iPhone but in reverse, great user phone
but does not work with must companies polices, its a shame these large
copmines do not read the forums more oftern as this would reslove 90% of
people issues and get people back into beliving that they do understand what
is want, not just what they are going to do.
Plus as the above links shows there where enough people who want this that
someone have taken the time to fix the issue that MS did not want to do.
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
for *most* of the Windows Mobile users, who I think MS visualizes as an
Enterprise user, it's not a big deal. In the same way, given that you can't
program an iPhone, Apple doesn't seem to care about the Enterprise market.
You're dead on as to what the problem is...
Paul T.
"Doubledare0511" <Doubled...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EBF2A11E-01B4-43DC...@microsoft.com...
John
> Hi John, try this link
> http://www.airscanner.com/downloads/airfix/airfix.html, they have an
> application that can let you sync and still have your internet access and
> it's for free. I have not tried this myself.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, this came a bit late.
I didn't try airfix yet, but
I already found few ways to fix the problem myself.
I see (and tested) the following 3 ways:
1. Completely disable CurrentDTPTNetwork provider.
Simply rename value "CSPNET.DLL" under
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{f792e23c-dc19-4668-9be4-f8688b4c18d6}\InprocServer32]
using your favorite registry editor, then reboot.
Now you have ActiveSync and WiFi at the same time,
Pros: this is the simplest approach, no programming is needed.
Cons: you cannot browse Internet from your Pocket PC using ActiveSync
pass-through.
2. Write a short program, which registers for Unbind notifications using
IOCTL_NDISUIO_REQUEST_NOTIFICATION,
then re-binds the adapter.
Pros: simple application.
Cons: the adapter is actually get's unbound and all connections are lost
before you get a chance to re-bind it. Then it will take time
to re-establish connection, get new DHCP address, etc.
3. Write a short driver, which wraps around NDS (ndis.dll)
and passes all calls down to the original ndis.dll except for
IOCTL_NDIS_UNBIND_ADAPTER call. Once it gets
IOCTL_NDIS_UNBIND_ADAPTER it displays an optional
message box asking whether the user wants to unbind or not.
I will stick with the latter approach for now.
I don't see any drawbacks yet.
Now I will need to find some bridge or proxy software
to allow me connect to Internet through Pocket PC WiFi.
Did anybody see anything like that?
> This is just like the iPhone but in reverse
Yes, I wanted to make the same point myself.
I read some iPhone reviews recently, which also compare iPhone
with older Smartphones such as Windows Mobile, Symbian and others.
The overall message seems to be "Why we were forced to sufer for so long?"
People were cursing these half-functioning Smartphones for years,
but they had no choice and no feedback (as Paul explained).
But now they can compare and choose and I am afraid
for the future of Windows Mobile.
Microsoft will, probably, not even notice if this tiny
fraction of their market will disappear,
but for us, who made investment into this platform
it's demise will be very unfortunate.
Thank you
John
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
when Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE 6, presumably in the next version
after WM6. You won't be able to do any UI stuff from inside the driver
because it will be in kernel mode. No other problems that come immediately
to mind, though.
I like solution #2. As long as AS isn't persistent about unbinding the
adapter over and over, this scheme requires no low-level access to anything,
uses all documented interfaces, and should work.
Paul T.
"John" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6BBF3E2-1372-4EA1...@microsoft.com...
John
> when Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE 6, presumably in the next version
> after WM6. You won't be able to do any UI stuff from inside the driver
> because it will be in kernel mode. No other problems that come immediately
> to mind, though.
Yes, I know about CE 6 changes.
But, hopefully I will not need to port this solution to WM 7 because you said
that the problem was solved in WM 6.
Anyway, my goal is to use my old WM 2005 Pocket PC as a WiFi bridge.
If it will work, then I will be able to use it for years to come and will
not need an upgrade.
> I like solution #2. As long as AS isn't persistent about unbinding the
> adapter over and over, this scheme requires no low-level access to anything,
> uses all documented interfaces, and should work.
Yes. CSPNET.DLL does unbind when you plug in AS, after
the adapter is enabled (this explains why WiFi actually works for a second
after setup, then breaks, as I explained in my ninitial post),
after suspend/resume cycle, may be some other occasions, which I haven't
seen yet.
So, the message box certainly should have an option "Don't show it anymore",
otherwise it is too annoying.
But, method #2 re-binds adapters few seconds after they are unbound,
so all active connections will be broken, DHCP lease will have to be
re-established, you may get a different IP address, etc.
So, I will stick with a driver approach.
John
John
> when Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE 6, presumably in the next version
> after WM6. You won't be able to do any UI stuff from inside the driver
> because it will be in kernel mode. No other problems that come immediately
> to mind, though.
Yes, I know about CE 6 changes.
But, hopefully I will not need to port this solution to WM 7 because you said
that the problem was solved in WM 6.
Anyway, my goal is to use my old WM 2005 Pocket PC as a WiFi bridge.
If it will work, then I will be able to use it for years to come and will
not need an upgrade.
> I like solution #2. As long as AS isn't persistent about unbinding the
> adapter over and over, this scheme requires no low-level access to anything,
> uses all documented interfaces, and should work.
Yes. CSPNET.DLL does unbind when you plug in AS, after
Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]
substantial control over what they actually expose that the system supports,
if you see what I mean. Fingers crossed, of course.
If you rebind the adapter, it's *very* unlikely that you'll get a different
IP address; very unlikely. The DHCP server is going to keep you in a cache
for a while after you go away (in fact, it probably won't even know that
you've gone away, as there's no ongoing communication between client and
DHCP server, until the lease is getting old). So, when the same Ethernet
address comes in and asks the DHCP server for another IP, it's virtually
certain that it will get the same one as last time. I'm constantly
rebooting our devices while under development and they will *forever* get
the same IP from our DHCP server, unless the server runs out of DHCP
addresses to assign and a new Enet address comes in and wants an IP...
Paul T.
"John" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7446D188-8A3F-4A76...@microsoft.com...
John
> substantial control over what they actually expose that the system supports,
> if you see what I mean. Fingers crossed, of course.
Luckily, they simply don't have any control once the device is in our hand.
Do they *allow* to kill connmgr.exe, as airfix does?
I guess not. But can they stop us from doing it? No.
This confirms my earlier point that too restrictive and too cumbersome
security is actually less secure because it forces users to
find work around or disable it completely.
> If you rebind the adapter, it's *very* unlikely that you'll get a different
> IP address; very unlikely.
At my home, yes, of course. I have only two clients and they always get the
same address.
But in a large office addresses do change sometimes.
Also if WiFi connection is not very reliable, as it often is, then I am
likely to get
several DHCP retries and sometimes a failure message box. Therefore, I prefer
not to re-initialize IP stack if possible.