Re: A little FYI

From: David (davidwnh_at_adelphia.net)
Date: 11/25/03 

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:35:49 GMT

And keep saying it over and over again...but you're wrong as usual. This
is akin to recommending to someone to reinstall their OS for some simple
configuration issue. It may work...but it may not and may simply cause
unnecessary grief and a waste of one's precious time. The user will
"more often than not" end up with the same problem if they use your
advice. Sometimes it will work if it is due to a registry setting or
file which was inadvertently changed or corrupted. More often than not
if you don't try to diagnose what the actual problem was you end up at
square one in no time, because you have applied a fix for a different
problem or end up making the same configuration error. You don't try
different fixes one by one until you figure out what the problem might
have been. You figure out the problem then apply a single fix so you
don't break something else or end up in the same situation. These days
most of the time this particular problem is associated with a
misconfigured OS, adapter, firewall, or network settings. Maybe faulty
network equipment, or even just a sporadically congested network. There
are so many reasons for the 169.xxx issue, most which have nothing to do
with a corrupted stack. This is just *one* symptom which several
different problems cause.

Ultimately this is due to problems with DHCP registration so one needs
to look at what might interfere with DHCP. So you disable any host-based
firewalls, recheck your adapter and firewall configuration, maybe your
dhcp servers settings if it is local(a router for example), and then
maybe sniff some packets to see what is or isn't happening. Then if your
machine is not generating any DHCP requests you know where the problem
lies. You come to too many conclusions based on personal experiences and
a *single* symptom with no technical knowledge to back up anything. Just
like the tech support personnel who knows nothing, but advises a caller
to perform the first fix that pops up on their screen when they enter
certain keywords into the query.....whether it is related to the problem
or not. If it works for one out of ten callers that is better than
having all ten callers reinstall their OS.

>
> I'll say it again. I got the 169.xxx number. I rebooted the machine and
> it would not go away. I did IPconfig /release and the O/S came back and
> said that it couldn't release it. I went to TCP/IP properties and told
> the NIC to use a router's static IP --- and it was a no go. I upgraded
> over the top of the existing workstation O/S to correct the situation and
> it was a no go. On the the server version of the Win 2K O/S, I don't
> recall being able to upgrade over the top of the existing O/S to fix the
> problem, which I don't think would have fixed it.
>
> You come up with a better solution let me know. I don't give a rat's ass
> as to what MS is saying about trying to get out of the situation on a Win
> 9'x machine. It may be simple on that O/S to just reboot, and hopefully,
> that will fix it on Win 9'x and ME. But one has the TCP/IP stack rebuild
> if it doesn't work, which I have seen post made to Win 9's users to get
> out of the situation. But on a NT based O/S when it happened to me on a
> few occasions on my NT based machines, the 169.xxx would not release nor
> could I use a static IP and the machine couldn't get to the router's
> admin page on the Linksys router by using 192.168.1.1 in IE. When I
> rebuilt the NT O/S TCP/IP stack when I get the 169.xxx IP that won't
> release, the problem is corrected.
>

It's called looking at *all* the symptoms not just one. Different
combinations of symptoms will point someone to the actual problem and
the correct solution. The fact that you have the same issue happening to
you "on a few occasions" should tell you that some setting you are
changing or some software you are installing is causing you grief. So
the next time it happens think about what you recently did and you will
know what is causing your particular problem and the various symptoms
that make it different from the vast number of other problems which
cause DHCP functionality to break on a machine.
> Like I said, you come up with a better solution or workaround, do let me
> know about it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DHCP Issue
    ... After using the LSP Fix & the Winsock Fix, the system will now pick up a ... DHCP IP Address. ... You will see a string and dll file name. ... Winsock Fix listed below. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: LogOn Scripts? - POP3 timeout?
    ... >> That's what made me curious about scripting. ... Yes, I do have DSL, and I agree, that is not a fix. ... > I think you may have learned how to deal with your symptoms ... Or think back to DOS and Procomm where you could simply script the logon ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • Re: strange Ethernet problem
    ... your O/S has no idea _who_ to ask to resolve addresses. ... file may be manually created (static and SOME DHCP configurations) ... static IP, supplying a network compatible IPv4 address, subnet mask, ... up IPv6, although some web-browsers think they know more about things ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Unable to set up local web
    ... fix, which worked. ... |> Also, I am not aware of having any system policies and in any case, I ... |> http://localhost to My Network Places, but got the same error message as ... |> symptoms the article describes are not my symptoms.. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage)
  • Re: IE crashes frequently on XP
    ... I had the problem before I installed SP2. ... I have already reinstalled IE6, trying to fix the problem. ... The progression of symptoms is always identical. ... >> symptoms as the first window. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser)