Using ROS 4.5
Using UM/Hotspot on a network but it seems like the clients are isolated from each other (Windows XP PCs) to some extent.
i.e. I sometimes cannot access \\hostname from another PC. If I log into hotspot with both and wait a while (sometimes 10 minutes) then I can see the shares again.
I also added a WalledGardenIP 'allow' rule SrcAdr=192.168.0.0/24 DstAddr=192.168.0.0/24 but the same problem occurs. It is a bit 'unstable' as it would work sometimes and sometimes not.

I need to be able to give them normal LAN traffic whether one or both PCs are logged into hotspot or not and just use hotspot for Internet access.
What can I do to give my clients back a 'stable' LAN where they can work as usual, irrespective of who is logged in or not, straight from a reboot.

Thanks
Ekkas

Access to the local network doesn't go through the Hotspot, the Hotspot sits on their layer 3 default gateway.

Thanks for the response.
Can you explain then why, if I uninstall hotspot and give them free access, local LAN access works just fine, all the time?
Also, after a reboot, shares would not work for quite some time, if both PCs are logged in, then, after a wait and a few pings/tries, it works again.

Strange, but true. I also found it on my own hotspot/usermanager setup using Synergy (to connect 2 PCs to share a keyboard/mouse via UDP), it would not work reliably unless both PCs are logged into hotspot/usermanager. Or it would not work, regardless, and I just leave it, a few minutes later it will suddenly connect again. Without hotspot/UM, no problems.

Any tips on where I can look for the cause, if it's not HS/UM?

Ekkas

Are you using Universal NAT (do you have an address pool defined on the Hotspot profile)? If so, trace traffic - using Wireshark on a client machine, for example - and see what IP addresses the clients use to talk amongst each other. Are they local network addresses? Try turning off Universal NAT unless you often have clients that don't receive DHCP from your network and come in with statics for different networks.

Thanks again.
Yes, I do have an IP range assigned by hotspot, but as far as I can tell, the 2 PCs in question always get the same IP. In hotspot/hosts, I also see that their IP and bound IP is the same, so I don't know if different IPs is the problem. I made bindings for the two PCs and will see how it goes. Problem is at that site, it is a backpacker with people from all over the world coming to connect, so I'd like to keep the uPNP if possible (ducking support calls here), but the problem is between 2 permanent PCs, their server and a workstation that need to share a database.
I'll also go assign static IPs to them tomorrow in the hope that it would help.

Ekkas

Ensure you have enabled upnp on the correct interfaces and then put that rule you specified in your firewall filter forward chain (before the hotspot rules).
/ip firewall filter add chain=forward src-address=192.168.0.0/24 dst-address=192.168.0.0/24 action=accept
I use a similar setup to host an sql server database on my lan, with hotspot only for internet access.
I also
Let's know how it goes.

Thanks for that.
I have a bridge interface (where hotspot is setup on) with ports ether1 and wlan1
ether1 is for the LAN in question and some public PCs, wlan1 for visitors and management roaming laptops (4 AP wds system)

I see uPNP is not enabled under IP/uPNP (Should I enable it?)
If you say enable uPNP on correct interfaces, which would be the correct ones then, the bridge interface?

Ekkas
PS: The suspense is killing me, you said:

I also

...?

Yes, enable /ip upnp, with external interface=WAN and internal interface=bridge (if your dhcp server is on the bridge interface). Make sure to disable/uncheck 'allow-disable-external-interface'.
I don't fully understand this

ether1 is for the LAN in question and some public PCs, wlan1 for visitors

. So which is your public/WAN interface?

Sorry, I didn't notice I left that there

I also

, it was a thought out of context.

I tried enabling uPNP & added the rule. Still same problem.
After both PCs & RB reboot, I can immediately ping the 'server' via hostname: ping ivserver with success, but no file sharing \\ivserver
When both PCs are logged into hotspot, then only will sharing work after a short while!?
It's just weird
Ekkas

Did you set the bridge to 'use ip firewall'?
I am still not clear about your setup:

ether1 is for the LAN in question and some public PCs, wlan1 for visitors

And you've bridged ether1 with wlan1. Are you giving all PCs public IPs? Please clarify setup.

Sorry for the lack of info...
Router has 3 physical interfaces, 2 logical:
PUBLIC WLAN (gateway)
LOCAL bridge (ether & local WLan)

So the bridge is just so that wireless clients (visitors with laptops) and wired PCs all use hotspot.

I never knew/checked the bridge 'use IP firewall option', I'll go enable it when I'm there again and see how it goes.
Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it!!!

Ekkas

Just to be sure:
- no ip for ether1
- no ip for local wlan
- ip address for bridge (192.168.0.x/24)
- dhcp server on bridge
- hotspot server on bridge
- bridge set to 'use-ip-firewall'
- 'accept' rule for 192.168.0.0/24 in ip firewall filter forward chain occurring early
- upnp enabled with external interface=public wlan and internal interface=bridge

If all this is in place and problem persists, only two other things I can imagine:
- rerun windows xp network setup wizard
- you may have issues with dns records for your LAN

Thanks, apart from

- bridge set to 'use-ip-firewall'

All is in place. I'll see what happens when I go there again.

Ekkas

This is a problem that keep on recurring... It doesn't make sense to me. What would you suggest I do? Replace NIC's? I'm thinking to throw in a NIC into each of the 2 PC and lay a crossover with their own subnet to avoid HS.

Ekkas

I had the same problems when i used hotspots on my bridged network, when i stream movies from my server it would just stop after a while. I run a ping to the server and it runs fine all on different ip range to the hotspot. My solution was to run a pppoe server instead.