okay, i feel like an absolute and total idiot having to ask this, but i'm about to tear out what's left of my hair... please help me understand what's going wrong and how i can fix this so i can accomplish what should be such an easy task.
here's what i want to do:
copy shared files from an NT4 WS box to a w2k pro box
here's the setup:
main (copier) box:
* running w2k pro (workgroup name: WORKGROUP)
* has 10/100 ethernet card (assigns itself an IP on boot [self DHCP?])
* has usb DSL modem
* running latest free version of ZoneAlarm (ethernet card is enabled to be in local zone; localnet setting: medium; internet setting: high)
secondary (copiee) box:
* running NT4 WS (workgroup name: WORKGROUP)
* has newly installed 10/100 ethernet card (currently manually assigned an IP to be in the same subnet as the main box, and the gateway is set to the main box's IP addy; see notes below)
both boxes are connected thru a regular ol' 4 port network hub
i have adminstrator access on both boxes
here are the problems i've run up against in my endeavors:
* from each box, i can ping the other box's IP; however, i cannot see or access any more information than that.
i've tried start > run... > "\\ipaddy\share" and "net view \\ipaddy", as well as "net use \\ipaddy\share" with /user:administrator and the admin's password. each returns "the remote computer is not available".
* neither box shows up in the other's network neighborhood, even tho they have the same workgroup name. is there a difference between NT and w2k workgroups?
* i tried to enable DHCP on the NT4 box to receive an IP assignment from the w2k pro box, but each time it failed, so i've had to manually set the IP on the NT box to be within the same subnet as the w2k box.
in the past, it seems like i've been able to attach a laptop running w2k pro to my network and have the laptop receive an IP from the main w2k pro box, so i'm puzzled why this is failing in this case.
* i've tried dropping zonealarm's localnet setting down from "medium" to "low", to no avail.
so what am i misunderstanding and/or doing wrong? am i wrong to think that this should've been much easier than it's been so far?
your guidance and assistance being most appreciated--
VicAcid
here's what i want to do:
copy shared files from an NT4 WS box to a w2k pro box
here's the setup:
main (copier) box:
* running w2k pro (workgroup name: WORKGROUP)
* has 10/100 ethernet card (assigns itself an IP on boot [self DHCP?])
* has usb DSL modem
* running latest free version of ZoneAlarm (ethernet card is enabled to be in local zone; localnet setting: medium; internet setting: high)
secondary (copiee) box:
* running NT4 WS (workgroup name: WORKGROUP)
* has newly installed 10/100 ethernet card (currently manually assigned an IP to be in the same subnet as the main box, and the gateway is set to the main box's IP addy; see notes below)
both boxes are connected thru a regular ol' 4 port network hub
i have adminstrator access on both boxes
here are the problems i've run up against in my endeavors:
* from each box, i can ping the other box's IP; however, i cannot see or access any more information than that.
i've tried start > run... > "\\ipaddy\share" and "net view \\ipaddy", as well as "net use \\ipaddy\share" with /user:administrator and the admin's password. each returns "the remote computer is not available".
* neither box shows up in the other's network neighborhood, even tho they have the same workgroup name. is there a difference between NT and w2k workgroups?
* i tried to enable DHCP on the NT4 box to receive an IP assignment from the w2k pro box, but each time it failed, so i've had to manually set the IP on the NT box to be within the same subnet as the w2k box.
in the past, it seems like i've been able to attach a laptop running w2k pro to my network and have the laptop receive an IP from the main w2k pro box, so i'm puzzled why this is failing in this case.
* i've tried dropping zonealarm's localnet setting down from "medium" to "low", to no avail.
so what am i misunderstanding and/or doing wrong? am i wrong to think that this should've been much easier than it's been so far?
your guidance and assistance being most appreciated--
VicAcid
Facebook
Twitter