Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CyberSimian" data-source="post: 1241125" data-attributes="member: 141969">I have a puzzling problem with devices on my home network.&nbsp; The network uses power-line ethernet adapters, my HTPC runs Windows Vista, and the low-power state uses hibernation.&nbsp; On most occasions when the HTPC wakes from hibernation, it can ping the other devices on the network and receive a reply from those that are powered on.&nbsp; But sometimes it receives no reply, even though those devices are powered on.&nbsp; Example:[code]Pinging 192.168.2.11 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 192.168.2.5: Destination host unreachable.[/code]192.168.2.5 is the network adapter in the HTPC.&nbsp; Some details:(1) All of the devices have static IP addresses.(2) As far as I know, I am not using any antivirus or malware detection software.&nbsp; Windows own tools for antivirus/malware are disabled.(3) I have encountered this problem with a variety of network devices, specifically:(a) A Synology NAS.(b) A WDTV Media Player.(c) A Belkin Network USB Hub.All of these devices use some version of Linux (I think), but they perform very different functions.&nbsp; However, they all fail to reply to a ping when the network gets into this weird state (although they were tried at different times -- not simultaneously).(4) There is another form of network message called an ARP message (&quot;Address Resolution Protocol&quot;).&nbsp; It is similar to ping (send a small data packet to a specified address, receive a small data packet in reply), but it behaves exactly the same as ping -- most of the time it works, but sometimes it doesn't.Do these symptoms sound familiar to anyone?&nbsp; I am hoping for a solution along the lines of &quot;You need to enable the xyz option&quot;.&nbsp; Alternatively, is there some sort of reset, rescan, re-init, or delete-all command that will reset or re-init the network status on Vista and allow the pings/ARPs to work reliably?&nbsp; Rebooting clears the problem, but I was hoping for a solution that is less drastic than that.&nbsp; Thanks for any suggestions.-- from CyberSimian in the UK</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CyberSimian, post: 1241125, member: 141969"] I have a puzzling problem with devices on my home network. The network uses power-line ethernet adapters, my HTPC runs Windows Vista, and the low-power state uses hibernation. On most occasions when the HTPC wakes from hibernation, it can ping the other devices on the network and receive a reply from those that are powered on. But sometimes it receives no reply, even though those devices are powered on. Example: [code]Pinging 192.168.2.11 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.2.5: Destination host unreachable.[/code] 192.168.2.5 is the network adapter in the HTPC. Some details: (1) All of the devices have static IP addresses. (2) As far as I know, I am not using any antivirus or malware detection software. Windows own tools for antivirus/malware are disabled. (3) I have encountered this problem with a variety of network devices, specifically: (a) A Synology NAS. (b) A WDTV Media Player. (c) A Belkin Network USB Hub. All of these devices use some version of Linux (I think), but they perform very different functions. However, they all fail to reply to a ping when the network gets into this weird state (although they were tried at different times -- not simultaneously). (4) There is another form of network message called an ARP message ("Address Resolution Protocol"). It is similar to ping (send a small data packet to a specified address, receive a small data packet in reply), but it behaves exactly the same as ping -- most of the time it works, but sometimes it doesn't. Do these symptoms sound familiar to anyone? I am hoping for a solution along the lines of "You need to enable the xyz option". Alternatively, is there some sort of reset, rescan, re-init, or delete-all command that will reset or re-init the network status on Vista and allow the pings/ARPs to work reliably? Rebooting clears the problem, but I was hoping for a solution that is less drastic than that. Thanks for any suggestions. -- from CyberSimian in the UK [/QUOTE]

Verification