2 NICs. 2 Networks. ! PC

Microsoft Windows xp professional w/serv...
April 9, 2010 at 01:11:02
Specs: Windows XP

I have one PC with Windows XP installed.

There are two networks adapters -
1) Wireless ( internet )
2) Wired ( LAN )

IP Address details for WIRED are

Subnet M ask:
Default Gateway:

IP Address details for wired are -
Subnet Mask:
Default Gateway:

The problem:

Both the connections don't work
simultaneously. If I stop WIRED only then
wireless works. If I stop WIRELESS then only
wired works.

Restrictions: IP Range/default gateways of
both the networks cannot be changed. Cannot
add new hardware.

What I tried:
1) removing the default gateway from wired -

2) Changing Metrics - NO HELP

Please help me sort out this problem.


Bharat Mudgal

See More: 2 NICs. 2 Networks. ! PC

Report •

April 9, 2010 at 04:06:36
You cannot use both wired and wireless connections on the same PC at the same time.

There is nothing wrong with your system.

You can only use one or the other, not both

Report •

April 9, 2010 at 06:43:43
Hello pip22

Thanks a lot for your reply. However, I think there has to be a way. I guess there are many people like me who face this situation and there must be some configuration/setting/way through this problem.


Bharat Mudgal

Report •

April 9, 2010 at 08:13:54
It can be done and you did it correctly by removing the gateway entry from one of the interfaces.

Question now is why didn't that work. The wired interface needs a STATIC ip that does not change and has no gateway entry.

Can you accomplish this?

Report •

Related Solutions

April 9, 2010 at 22:43:29
Hi wanderer

the wired interface already has a static IP. still not working.



Report •

April 10, 2010 at 14:28:05
Subnet M ask:
Default Gateway:"

That's probably for your router.

We need to know what you see when you type ipconfig /all.

Make a new folder on the root of C: e.g. C:\Junk

Start - Run
type: cmd , click OK or press Enter.
type: ipconfig /all > C:\Junk\ipconfig.txt , press Enter
(a space between ipconfig and /all, and between all and >, and after > )
type: exit, or close the black window.

Go to where the text file was placed.
e.g. C:\Junk.
Open up the text file, copy the complete text that's in it, and post it in this topic.

Report •

April 10, 2010 at 16:43:16
Why would you want to use both?

Just because the OP does not come back in 3 or 4 days to reply, does not mean he will not come back and reply.

Report •

May 24, 2010 at 14:27:17
Hello, this is mainly an answer for the last TechNut question.

I have a quite similar situation as mudgalbharat, but with 3 NICs (1x100BaseT, 1x1000BaseT, 1 Wireless 802.11bg).
I need the 3 NICs because:
1- Each NIC is connected to a specific private LAN (192.168.x.x)
2- In normal case, the LANs must not be connected. This is the easy way to manage the data bandwidth usage and reduce any risk of data congestion due to fact than: i) one LAN have a constant bandwidth usage of 25Mbps, ii) an other LAN have a constant bandwidth usage of 500Mbps and iii) the last LAN have a constant bandwidth usage of 5 Mbps.
3- On a sub-LAN, some IP devices on a sub-LAN does not require an Internet access, and more they shouldn't be accessed from Internet (no visibility, no ping, no scan port,...). Why ? because for example, they are 'off-line' saving devices, or they are multimedia materials without diffusion licensing.

To come back on the discussion subject, I have checked myself many configurations (2 NICs, 3 NICs,...) then I can confirm that the problem is present if the Pc is only a workstation (even if we don't need all network's management functions).
To complete the last suggestion (static IP+no gateway), I can propose: add some static routing on networks.

Even if it seems not sufficent, the basic set of rules shall be:
- 1 rule for access by the Wireless interface and its GW to all non-LAN address
- 1 rule for private LAN (192.168.x.x) by the 192.168.x.x interface (all 192.168.x.x messages must be transmetted to that must manage the routage to the ending destinations).

Best regards, JaI

Report •

May 26, 2010 at 07:53:24
mudgalbharat has not provided enough info for us to determine exactly what he was trying to do.

Report •

Ask Question