Hello,

Following output I collected from ipconfig/all and browstat status. I have
tried most of the recommended steps in Chuck's articles but I executed them
on the one machine that generates the Error 53 while running browstat.

Client1:

Output from ipconfig/all

Windows IP-configuratie

Host-naam . . . . . . . . . . . .: MARSHAPC

Primair DNS-achtervoegsel. . . . .:

Knooppunttype . . . . . . . . . . : hybride

IP-routering ingeschakeld. . . . .: nee

WINS-proxy ingeschakeld . . . . . : nee DNS-achtervoegselzoeklijst. . . . :
wanadoo.nl Ethernet-adapter Draadloze netwerkverbinding 4: Verbindingsspec.
DNS-achtervoegsel: wanadoo.nl

Beschrijving . . . . . . . . . . .: Linksys Wireless-G PCI Adapter with
SpeedBooster

Fysiek adres. . . . . . . . . . . : 00-0F-66-6D-02-6C

DHCP ingeshakeld. . . . . . . . . : ja

Autom. configuratie ingeschakeld. : ja

IP-adres. . . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.101

Subnetmasker. . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Standaardgateway. . . . .
.. . . . : 192.168.1.1 DHCP-server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

DNS-servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 194.134.5.5 194.134.0.97

Lease verkregen . . . . . . . . . : donderdag 29 december 2005 15:49:35
Lease verlopen . . . . . . . . . : vrijdag 30 december 2005 15:49:35

Output from browstat status

Status for domain THUIS on transport
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{0FD41CF6-F664-4E79-B08B-74875B673738}

Browsing is active on domain.

Master browser name is: HOMEPCVANHAGEN

Could not connect to registry, error = 53 Unable to determine build of
browser master: 53

\\\\HOMEPCVANHAGEN. Version:05.01 Flags: 51203 NT POTENTIAL MASTER

1 backup servers retrieved from master HOMEPCVANHAGEN

\\HOMEPCVANHAGEN

There are 2 servers in domain THUIS on transport
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{0FD41CF6-F664-4E79-B08B-74875B673738}

There are 1 domains in domain THUIS on transport
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{0FD41CF6-F664-4E79-B08B-74875B673738}





Client2:

Windows IP-configuratie

Host-naam . . . . . . . . . . . .: HOMEPCVANHAGEN

Primair DNS-achtervoegsel. . . . .:

Knooppunttype: . . . . . . . . . .: onbekend

IP-routering ingeschakeld. . . . .: nee

WINS-proxy ingeschakeld . . . . . : nee

DNS-achtervoegselzoeklijst. . . . : wanadoo.nl

Ethernet-adapter Draadloze netwerkverbinding 2:

Verbindingsspec. DNS-achtervoegsel: wanadoo.nl

Beschrijving . . . . . . . . . . .: Linksys Wireless-G PCI Adapter with
SpeedBooster

Fysiek adres. . . . . . . . . . . : 00-0F-66-6D-03-59

DHCP ingeshakeld. . . . . . . . . : ja

Autom. configuratie ingeschakeld. : ja

IP-adres. . . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.100

Subnetmasker. . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0

Standaardgateway. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

DHCP-server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

DNS-servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 194.134.5.5 194.134.0.97

Lease verkregen . . . . . . . . . : donderdag 29 december 2005 10:04:18

Lease verlopen . . . . . . . . . : vrijdag 30 december 2005 10:04:18

Status for domain THUIS on transport
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{C3BE99C7-8487-4AFE-A108-B34113BEAD0F}

Browsing is active on domain.

Master browser name is: HOMEPCVANHAGEN

Master browser is running build 2600

1 backup servers retrieved from master HOMEPCVANHAGEN

\\HOMEPCVANHAGEN

There are 2 servers in domain THUIS on transport
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{C3BE99C7-8487-4AFE-A108-B34113BEAD0F}

There are 1 domains in domain THUIS on transport
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{C3BE99C7-8487-4AFE-A108-B34113BEAD0F}

The "error 53" on client 1 indeed looks suspicious. I have read Chuck's
article on the "Error 53" problem and I have applied all fixes suggested
there (including the LSP/WinSock fixes). However, I only applied them on
client 1 assuming that's where the problem is. I have also uninstalled my
virus and internet security software to make sure there is no firewall still
active in the background although the configuration mentioned it was
disabled. Still no luck! I keep getting the Error 53 message which is
probably the most likely culprit.

Further assistance is much appreciated.

Thanks!

"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:sbv5r15csek2dui4okinh4o65hueag5jhm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:29:45 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm trying to enable filesharing on my wireless home network.
>>Sofar, I've been able to enable this in one direction only. This is from
>>the
>>non-browser elected to the browser elected machine. From the browser host
>>to
>>the client it doesn't work.
>>Whatever I do, I don't get to see the shares in my network locations
>>window.
>>I have verified the TCP/IP connection using ping at the cmd level and that
>>works with both the IP address and the computer system name. If I try to
>>access the share from Windows it complains "network not accessible or not
>>started". I have applied all troubleshooting tips from various sites
>>including the Microsoft support site. Still no luck.
>>Both clients are running Windows XP Home Edition SP2. I'm using a Linksys
>>wireless access point. Since I'm able to use file/print sharing in one
>>direction I assume changing the configuration on my Linksys router will
>>not
>>help.
>>
>>Appreciate any help.
>>
>>Thanks.
>
> Paul,
>
> Not knowing what sites are included in "various sites", I will offer my
> detailed
> troubleshooting guide. Maybe there's a detail in there that hasn't
> occurred to
> you.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/troubleshooting-network-neighborhood.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ghborhood.html
>
> You are correct in that since you have file sharing in one direction, you
> obviously have connectivity OK. The router, which provides connectivity
> between
> the computers on your LAN is essentially a switch - there are no settings
> that
> are relevant to your problem.
>
> If no help yet, provide "browstat status" and "ipconfig /all" from each
> computer, and we can diagnose the problem. Read this article, and linked
> articles, and follow instructions precisely:
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/troubleshooting-network-neighborhood.html#AskingForHelp>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...#AskingForHelp
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:21:59 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Following output I collected from ipconfig/all and browstat status. I have
>tried most of the recommended steps in Chuck's articles but I executed them
>on the one machine that generates the Error 53 while running browstat.

<SNIP>

>The "error 53" on client 1 indeed looks suspicious. I have read Chuck's
>article on the "Error 53" problem and I have applied all fixes suggested
>there (including the LSP/WinSock fixes). However, I only applied them on
>client 1 assuming that's where the problem is. I have also uninstalled my
>virus and internet security software to make sure there is no firewall still
>active in the background although the configuration mentioned it was
>disabled. Still no luck! I keep getting the Error 53 message which is
>probably the most likely culprit.
>
>Further assistance is much appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
>news:sbv5r15csek2dui4okinh4o65hueag5jhm@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:29:45 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I'm trying to enable filesharing on my wireless home network.
>>>Sofar, I've been able to enable this in one direction only. This is from
>>>the
>>>non-browser elected to the browser elected machine. From the browser host
>>>to
>>>the client it doesn't work.
>>>Whatever I do, I don't get to see the shares in my network locations
>>>window.
>>>I have verified the TCP/IP connection using ping at the cmd level and that
>>>works with both the IP address and the computer system name. If I try to
>>>access the share from Windows it complains "network not accessible or not
>>>started". I have applied all troubleshooting tips from various sites
>>>including the Microsoft support site. Still no luck.
>>>Both clients are running Windows XP Home Edition SP2. I'm using a Linksys
>>>wireless access point. Since I'm able to use file/print sharing in one
>>>direction I assume changing the configuration on my Linksys router will
>>>not
>>>help.
>>>
>>>Appreciate any help.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Not knowing what sites are included in "various sites", I will offer my
>> detailed
>> troubleshooting guide. Maybe there's a detail in there that hasn't
>> occurred to
>> you.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/troubleshooting-network-neighborhood.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ghborhood.html
>>
>> You are correct in that since you have file sharing in one direction, you
>> obviously have connectivity OK. The router, which provides connectivity
>> between
>> the computers on your LAN is essentially a switch - there are no settings
>> that
>> are relevant to your problem.
>>
>> If no help yet, provide "browstat status" and "ipconfig /all" from each
>> computer, and we can diagnose the problem. Read this article, and linked
>> articles, and follow instructions precisely:
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/troubleshooting-network-neighborhood.html#AskingForHelp>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...#AskingForHelp

Paul,

The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but there are
variants of that.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html

The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type. MarshaPC value
of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html

If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for personal
firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers. And make
sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many other
factors that might affect name resolution.

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.

The "restrictanonymous" is 0 on both computers but there is another entry
called "restrictanonymoussam" which equals 1.

Could that entry be potentially harmful?

> <SNIP>
>
> Paul,
>
> The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but there
> are
> variants of that.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html
>
> The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type. MarshaPC
> value
> of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html
>
> If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for personal
> firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers. And
> make
> sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many
> other
> factors that might affect name resolution.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>> Paul,
>>
>> The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but there
>> are
>> variants of that.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html
>>
>> The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type. MarshaPC
>> value
>> of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html
>>
>> If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for personal
>> firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers. And
>> make
>> sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many
>> other
>> factors that might affect name resolution.

>The "restrictanonymous" is 0 on both computers but there is another entry
>called "restrictanonymoussam" which equals 1.
>
>Could that entry be potentially harmful?

Paul,

The value of "restrictanonymoussam" is not relevant.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ur-server.html

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.

OK. I did as you suggested. I enabled NBT on both machines (was still
"standard" on one machine). I checked the registry entry "restrictanonymous"
which is 0 on both machines. I'm still getting the Error 53 message when I
execute "browstat status" on MARSHAPC:-(
I have also verified that no personal firewalls are still active in the
background.

The funny thing is though that when I use the ping command from
HOMEPCVANHAGEN to MARSHAPC the name MARSHAPC is properly resolved into the
IP address. I can also ping from MARSHAPC using the name HOMEPCVANHAGEN. So,
on the cmd-level name resolution seems to work in both directions. However,
when I do Start->Run->\\MARSHAPC it returns the message "Network does not
exist or is not started".

While enabling NBT I also noticed the option "Enable LMHOSTS lookup" which
was turned on on both machines. Would it make any difference I would turn
that option off?

<snip>
>
> Paul,
>
> The value of "restrictanonymoussam" is not relevant.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ur-server.html
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.

Some additional details whilst diagnosing the problem:

On PC "homepcvanhagen" (the one that cannot access PC "marshapc") I can
successfully view the available shares with "net view \\marshapc".

However, when I try the command "net use \\marshapc" it complains that the
workstation service hasn't been started. I checked the service on both
computers and they have been started i.e. they appear in the list with
status "Started".

I'm convinced name-resolution works properly. I'm inclined to think of a
Winsock or registry corruption of some kind. I ran the LSP fix on both
compuers but didn't dare to remove the dll's mentioned. No enumeration
errors were detected though.

"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:0m9jr1lkr12gblbl79915ka3ncrd440qrv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but
>>> there
>>> are
>>> variants of that.
>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html
>>>
>>> The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type.
>>> MarshaPC
>>> value
>>> of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html
>>>
>>> If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for
>>> personal
>>> firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers. And
>>> make
>>> sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many
>>> other
>>> factors that might affect name resolution.
>
>>The "restrictanonymous" is 0 on both computers but there is another entry
>>called "restrictanonymoussam" which equals 1.
>>
>>Could that entry be potentially harmful?
>
> Paul,
>
> The value of "restrictanonymoussam" is not relevant.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ur-server.html
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
>news:0m9jr1lkr12gblbl79915ka3ncrd440qrv@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but
>>>> there
>>>> are
>>>> variants of that.
>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html
>>>>
>>>> The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type.
>>>> MarshaPC
>>>> value
>>>> of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html
>>>>
>>>> If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for
>>>> personal
>>>> firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers. And
>>>> make
>>>> sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many
>>>> other
>>>> factors that might affect name resolution.
>>
>>>The "restrictanonymous" is 0 on both computers but there is another entry
>>>called "restrictanonymoussam" which equals 1.
>>>
>>>Could that entry be potentially harmful?
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> The value of "restrictanonymoussam" is not relevant.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ur-server.html

>Some additional details whilst diagnosing the problem:
>
>On PC "homepcvanhagen" (the one that cannot access PC "marshapc") I can
>successfully view the available shares with "net view \\marshapc".
>
>However, when I try the command "net use \\marshapc" it complains that the
>workstation service hasn't been started. I checked the service on both
>computers and they have been started i.e. they appear in the list with
>status "Started".
>
>I'm convinced name-resolution works properly. I'm inclined to think of a
>Winsock or registry corruption of some kind. I ran the LSP fix on both
>compuers but didn't dare to remove the dll's mentioned. No enumeration
>errors were detected though.

Paul,

Did one of the LSP Fixes identify problems? You have to trust LSP Fix, and let
it correct the problems. The LSP Fixes are not redundant with any other
diagnostic / reparative step - if the problem is an LSP entry, you have to fix
the entry. And don't count on any one LSP Fix being substantiated by another -
not one of the LSP fixes is known to be more (or less) effective than the
others. If an LSP fix identifies a problem, go with the fix.

And, if your problems continue (if LSP fix is not the final diagnostic), and we
need to continue, please reply after my posts.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-to-post-on-usenet-and-encourage.html#TopPosting>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...tml#TopPosting

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.

Perhaps I didn't pay too much attention to the accompanying help document.

If a listed DLL in the leftmost listbox indicates that there is a corruption
detected in it, then I'd have to say yes. Are you saying I can put them in
the remove box safely or will the DLL be removed and do I have to reinstall
it from the Windows XP installation media? Perhaps I should read the help
document more carefully.

Thanks.

"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:g7rnr1haujq2qfnikh142qptq4cdkr0d7s@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
>>news:0m9jr1lkr12gblbl79915ka3ncrd440qrv@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen"
>>> <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but
>>>>> there
>>>>> are
>>>>> variants of that.
>>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
>>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type.
>>>>> MarshaPC
>>>>> value
>>>>> of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
>>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
>>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for
>>>>> personal
>>>>> firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers.
>>>>> And
>>>>> make
>>>>> sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many
>>>>> other
>>>>> factors that might affect name resolution.
>>>
>>>>The "restrictanonymous" is 0 on both computers but there is another
>>>>entry
>>>>called "restrictanonymoussam" which equals 1.
>>>>
>>>>Could that entry be potentially harmful?
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> The value of "restrictanonymoussam" is not relevant.
>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>
>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ur-server.html
>
>>Some additional details whilst diagnosing the problem:
>>
>>On PC "homepcvanhagen" (the one that cannot access PC "marshapc") I can
>>successfully view the available shares with "net view \\marshapc".
>>
>>However, when I try the command "net use \\marshapc" it complains that the
>>workstation service hasn't been started. I checked the service on both
>>computers and they have been started i.e. they appear in the list with
>>status "Started".
>>
>>I'm convinced name-resolution works properly. I'm inclined to think of a
>>Winsock or registry corruption of some kind. I ran the LSP fix on both
>>compuers but didn't dare to remove the dll's mentioned. No enumeration
>>errors were detected though.
>
> Paul,
>
> Did one of the LSP Fixes identify problems? You have to trust LSP Fix,
> and let
> it correct the problems. The LSP Fixes are not redundant with any other
> diagnostic / reparative step - if the problem is an LSP entry, you have to
> fix
> the entry. And don't count on any one LSP Fix being substantiated by
> another -
> not one of the LSP fixes is known to be more (or less) effective than the
> others. If an LSP fix identifies a problem, go with the fix.
>
> And, if your problems continue (if LSP fix is not the final diagnostic),
> and we
> need to continue, please reply after my posts.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-to-post-on-usenet-and-encourage.html#TopPosting>
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...tml#TopPosting
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:26:24 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
>news:g7rnr1haujq2qfnikh142qptq4cdkr0d7s@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen" <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Chuck" <none@example.net> schreef in bericht
>>>news:0m9jr1lkr12gblbl79915ka3ncrd440qrv@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:58:16 +0100, "Paul van Hagen"
>>>> <c7273504@wanadoo.nl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The literal interpretation of "Error = 53" is "name not found", but
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> variants of that.
>>>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/mysterious-error-53-aka-name-not-found.html"
>>>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...not-found.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most relevant entries in "ipconfig /all" would be node type.
>>>>>> MarshaPC
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> of "Hybrid", and HOMEPCVANHAGEN value of "Unknown" are both valid.
>>>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
>>>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...on-on-lan.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have tried all LSP / Winsock fixes on MarshaPC, check for
>>>>>> personal
>>>>>> firewall issues, and restrictanonymous settings, on both computers.
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> sure that NBT is "Enabled" for both computers. There aren't too many
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> factors that might affect name resolution.
>>>>
>>>>>The "restrictanonymous" is 0 on both computers but there is another
>>>>>entry
>>>>>called "restrictanonymoussam" which equals 1.
>>>>>
>>>>>Could that entry be potentially harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> The value of "restrictanonymoussam" is not relevant.
>>>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/07/restrictanonymous-and-your-server.html>
>>>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...ur-server.html
>>
>>>Some additional details whilst diagnosing the problem:
>>>
>>>On PC "homepcvanhagen" (the one that cannot access PC "marshapc") I can
>>>successfully view the available shares with "net view \\marshapc".
>>>
>>>However, when I try the command "net use \\marshapc" it complains that the
>>>workstation service hasn't been started. I checked the service on both
>>>computers and they have been started i.e. they appear in the list with
>>>status "Started".
>>>
>>>I'm convinced name-resolution works properly. I'm inclined to think of a
>>>Winsock or registry corruption of some kind. I ran the LSP fix on both
>>>compuers but didn't dare to remove the dll's mentioned. No enumeration
>>>errors were detected though.
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Did one of the LSP Fixes identify problems? You have to trust LSP Fix,
>> and let
>> it correct the problems. The LSP Fixes are not redundant with any other
>> diagnostic / reparative step - if the problem is an LSP entry, you have to
>> fix
>> the entry. And don't count on any one LSP Fix being substantiated by
>> another -
>> not one of the LSP fixes is known to be more (or less) effective than the
>> others. If an LSP fix identifies a problem, go with the fix.
>>
>> And, if your problems continue (if LSP fix is not the final diagnostic),
>> and we
>> need to continue, please reply after my posts.
>> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-to-post-on-usenet-and-encourage.html#TopPosting>
>> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/0...tml#TopPosting

>Perhaps I didn't pay too much attention to the accompanying help document.
>
>If a listed DLL in the leftmost listbox indicates that there is a corruption
>detected in it, then I'd have to say yes. Are you saying I can put them in
>the remove box safely or will the DLL be removed and do I have to reinstall
>it from the Windows XP installation media? Perhaps I should read the help
>document more carefully.

Paul,

What LSPFix (and its peers) do is to re register the LSP network stack. Here's
where you need to take a leap of faith - if LSPFix tells you a DLL is
problematic, and if your network doesn't work, then let LSPFix fix the problem.
Running LSPFix, then trying to second guess it ("Do I really trust this?"), will
get you nowhere.

--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.