- Networking 2 XP PCs via crossover cable
- Posted by jack on October 8th, 2005
I need to network 2 XP PCs via crossover cable.
PC#1 has 2 NICards. One NIC is setup for access to a company network
domain. DHCP is used. User accounts login to the domain.
PC#1's other NIC is for a crossover connection to PC#2. I've setup a
TCP/IP connection on this card as a private network with a static ip
address of 192.168.0.1.
I plan to setup the TCP/IP connection on PC#2 like the 2nd NIC on PC#1
except using 192.168.0.2 as the static ip address. I think I can
specify a workgroup on PC#2 but since PC#1 uses domain instead of
workgroup, there will not be a match on workgroup.
Assuming that the PC#1 user logs as a domain user, I'm not sure if this
setup will allow PC#1 to map a drive that has been shared on PC#2?
Please tell me if this should work regardless of domain and workgroup
considerations - or - if I need to make changes to the network
configuration.
Thanks, Jack
- Posted by daytripper on October 8th, 2005
On 8 Oct 2005 08:55:57 -0700, "jack" <jlhuber@juno.com> wrote:
If you enable a NAT proxy agent on PC1 (eg: the MS ICS built into your XP kit)
and set PC2 to be a Workgroup member using the domain name for the Workgroup
name, and your domain username and password for the login account created on
PC2, you should be able to use your existing domain username and password to
access network resources (eg: file shares and Exchange services) that are
visible to PC1.
You'll just have to provide the password credential each time you map a share
or log into your Exchange server from PC2...
- Posted by jack on October 12th, 2005
It worked, good, but it didn't work, bad.
I was able to set up the 2 network connections and --- access the
domain resources via PC1 and map a drive on PC2 from PC1. HOWEVER, I
cannot do these at the same time!! These only work when I disable one
of the network connections. If both are enabled at the same time, the
domain access fails. What corrects this?
I've tested it with the firewall on and off, but there is no
difference.
Any suggestions?
- Posted by daytripper on October 13th, 2005
On 12 Oct 2005 02:34:02 -0700, "jack" <jlhuber@juno.com> wrote:
One, at least: we don't keep your old posts laying about, so this followup,
totally sans any context, is made more difficult to follow. In the future,
include at least the pertinent parts of the post you're replying to.
Beyond that...make sure the two systems don't share a common IP address, or a
common system name...
