<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Hi Charles --<BR>
<BR>
Been falling behind in this interesting thread but finally got caught-up this AM. <BR>
<BR>
Yes. You did the right thing. (And YES a very interesting point in how her machine finally connected).<BR>
<BR>
Your resolution has my curiosity for future reference as well.<BR>
<BR>
Was her wireless card enabled when she was trying to connect originally? Was she broadcasting her SSID? What is the OS? If Windows was it up-to-date (service pack)? That's kinda the order that I would start in...<BR>
<BR>
I had a local shop that I do contract work for present me with an Acer netbook that was claimed as not being able to connect to the user's WAP. The OS was 9.10 and they (the shop and user) were not familiar with it. I took a "look" and it connected straight away for me. No issues. I'm no genius but in this case had more to do with knowing the clicks to get the job done. In this case, nothing was broken...and I'd guess that the gal (in my case) was not broadcasting her SSID and didn't know what it was in the first place. (Trying to connect to the wrong network or something?) As far as I can tell the issue in my case was good ole' user error. <BR>
<BR>
Your case sounded more of a s/w related issue in the laptop understanding "who" it was suppose to talk to. That or the wireless IF was not enabled when all of this started? Dunno. Once you did get an open connection to the WAP it became aware of it and remembered the connection (assuming that you manually input the SSID). iPod's Touch (my eldest son has one) seem to work this way when connecting to non-broadcast SSID's. Connect once and they will "remember" the SSID for one more connection. After that you have to manually key them in again.<BR>
<BR>
But then, if you're already weary of this one please let it do a fly-by. I'm with you...an interesting resolution. ---R<BR>
<BR>
PS> Are you going to Linuxfest again on the 24th? <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
<B>From</B>: Michael Trausch <<A HREF="mailto:Michael%20Trausch%20%3cmike@trausch.us%3e">mike@trausch.us</A>><BR>
<B>Reply-to</B>: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! <ale@ale.org><BR>
<B>To</B>: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! <<A HREF="mailto:Atlanta%20Linux%20Enthusiasts%20-%20Yes!%20We%20run%20Linux!%20%3cale@ale.org%3e">ale@ale.org</A>><BR>
<B>Subject</B>: Re: [ale] WRT54G2 wifi router troubles<BR>
<B>Date</B>: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:13:11 -0400<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 18:45 -0400, Brian Pitts wrote:
> I'm in favor of the "pass-through mode" recommendation, but only if
> the
> equipment in maintained by a technically savvy user. In this
> situation,
> I agree with Jim's comment above. Still, I doubt the list would have
> dumped on the suggestion so hard if the source hadn't been identified
> as
> an MCSE.
I don't know about that. It is one of those things that you don't do
unless you need to. That is, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Of
course, non-end-to-end connectivity is what I would consider broken, but
it's not really fixable for most people until IPv6 is rolled out. I
imagine that there will be a decent reduction in 'net traffic since a
lot of NAT traversal mechanisms will no longer be necessary then. Of
course, that also means that there will be a fair lot of services that
will also no longer be needed on the 'net, since their sole purpose in
life is to get around NATs.
--- Mike
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</A>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
<A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</A>
</PRE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>