Chuck how can I tell whether I am useing PPPoE.
I did provide the dns info maybe you missed my last post.
The 4th machine no longer connects to that site. The only thing I can
think of that is unusual is that I just installed XP in the 4th
machine about 5 days ago and had not used it to connect to the
internet except in a minimum way.
RASPPPOE if I put this on my machine can it be easily removed or does
it create a problem if it doesn't work. Had a quick look and it seems
to make registry changes. Not to familiar with restore but I guess
that could be used to return system back to previous state.
I am beginning to think I should just leave things alone as it so far
seems to be one web site out of the millions out there that is not
connecting.
I saw the DNS information in your last post.
For initial diagnosis in problems of this type, I ask for the complete and
unedited "ipconfig /all" from each computer on the LAN; sometimes a minor
difference in the output between a working and a non-working computer can
provide an obscure clue to what is wrong.
If it's not an MTU / PPPoE problem.
As far as the MTU / PPPoE issue, I haven't found an easy way to tell, other than
to ask what type of service the ISP provides (what are they charging for?).
You're behind a router - the router is configured to connect to your ISP per
their specs. There are 3 most common connections (see the router setup for how
you're connected):
- Fixed ip address
- Dynamic ip address
- Dynamic ip address with login - account/password - aka PPPoE
Loading RASPPPoE on your computer is NOT the answer - loading any PPPoE client
on a computer behind a NAT router will not help the problem, and may cause a
worse problem - lack of connectivity altogether from some PPPoE software. Sorry
for being vague there.
Allen Smith explains a way to test whether the MTU setting on your computer is
causing a problem with PPPoE:
http://www.allensmith.net/Windows/ICS/xpICSmtu.htm
Also see the Microsoft article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=319661
As far as leaving it alone, that's certainly an option, if the problem is just
one website then you're probably OK. If you identify additional websites, and
the problem becomes more significant, read the AllenSmith article. The
Annoyances article (previous post) is also good.