Prev: Windows 7 Wireless Problems
Next: bluetooth
From: Judy Zappacosta on 22 Apr 2010 16:21
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:08:39 -0700 (PDT), bod43 wrote:

> The top two determine which interfaces are used for
> traffic sent to your router,

I first ran an "ipconfig /all" which defined the LAN at 192.168.1.101 and
the WAN at 192.168.1.102.

Then I ran a "route /print" which reported the 192.168.1.101 metric cost
was 20 and the 192.168.1.102 metric cost was 25.

So, given your information, I can conclude the WinXP PC is using the LAN
which has a lower metric cost than the WAN.

Is a "20" a "decent" metric cost?
From: Char Jackson on 22 Apr 2010 20:18
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:21:16 +0000 (UTC), Judy Zappacosta
<zappajNOSPAM(a)Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:08:39 -0700 (PDT), bod43 wrote:
>
>> The top two determine which interfaces are used for
>> traffic sent to your router,
>
>I first ran an "ipconfig /all" which defined the LAN at 192.168.1.101 and
>the WAN at 192.168.1.102.

The ipconfig command doesn't tell you that. It tells you the IP
address assigned to each network interface, their respective subnet
masks, gateways, and DNS servers.

What you found is that one of your network interfaces is assigned the
IP address 192.168.1.101 and the other network interface is assigned
the IP address 192.168.1.102.

LAN = local area network, the network on your side of the router.
WAN = wide area network, everything on the other side of the router.

>Then I ran a "route /print" which reported the 192.168.1.101 metric cost
>was 20 and the 192.168.1.102 metric cost was 25.

The command is simply "route print", not "route /print", but you got
it right since you saw the metrics.

>So, given your information, I can conclude the WinXP PC is using the LAN
>which has a lower metric cost than the WAN.

LAN and WAN are again misused here, but you're correct that one
interface (with the lower metric) is given priority over the other
interface (with the higher metric).

>Is a "20" a "decent" metric cost?

The actual metric values are unimportant. The important thing is their
values relative to each other.

From: Judy Zappacosta on 23 Apr 2010 00:22
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:18:43 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

>>Is a "20" a "decent" metric cost?
> The actual metric values are unimportant. The important thing is their
> values relative to each other.

I was accidentally using WAN to mean the wireless area network and the LAN
to be the wired network but I do see what you mean.

So this seems to work to tell which network interface card is being used
when there are more than one network interface cards:

(1) Run "ipconfig /all" to figure out which network interface card is
associated with each IP address

(2) Run "route print" to figure out which IP address has the lowest metric
(the first two lines of the output).

(3) The IP address with the lowest metric is the one being used; the other
IP address is not being used.

Did I get it right this time?
From: Char Jackson on 23 Apr 2010 15:08
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:22:59 +0000 (UTC), Judy Zappacosta
<zappajNOSPAM(a)Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:18:43 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>>>Is a "20" a "decent" metric cost?
>> The actual metric values are unimportant. The important thing is their
>> values relative to each other.
>
>I was accidentally using WAN to mean the wireless area network and the LAN
>to be the wired network but I do see what you mean.
>
>So this seems to work to tell which network interface card is being used
>when there are more than one network interface cards:
>
>(1) Run "ipconfig /all" to figure out which network interface card is
>associated with each IP address

Good.

>(2) Run "route print" to figure out which IP address has the lowest metric
>(the first two lines of the output).

Good.

>(3) The IP address with the lowest metric is the one being used; the other
>IP address is not being used.

I'd rewrite that to say, "The network interface with the lowest metric
is the one being used by default." Other network interface(s) would be
used if specific route statements apply to them.

>Did I get it right this time?

Very good.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Windows 7 Wireless Problems
Next: bluetooth