Title: | Microsoft Windows 95 ("Chicago") |
Notice: | Please read topics 1 to 22 before writing anything |
Moderator: | EEMELI::BACKSTROM |
Created: | Sun Nov 13 1994 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 2958 |
Total number of notes: | 19968 |
I was trying to set the IP address of a DEClaser 5100 the other day and in order to do this you have to set the hardware address of the printer network interface in the arp cache and then ping the printer. According to the Windows 95 resource kit, Windows 95 should allow this. I attempted to set the arp cache just the manual described: arp -s 192.246.0.25 00-40-11-16-b1-c8 However, when I check the cache to see if the static arp entry is there, I get nothing.. arp -a <no arp entries> Does anyone know why arp commands don't seem to work right on Windows 95? I used Windows NT to issue the exact same commands and it worked fine. I was able to set up my printer correctly with NT. I tried this on two different Windows 95 systems and they both exhibited similar behaviour. Steve
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2924.1 | wrapped to <80 columns | TARKIN::LIN | Bill Lin | Wed May 07 1997 10:34 | 25 |
<<< Note 2924.0 by DIVING::DAVIS "Windows NT systems to go!! - DTN 339-5401" >>> -< ARP behavior? >- I was trying to set the IP address of a DEClaser 5100 the other day and in order to do this you have to set the hardware address of the printer network interface in the arp cache and then ping the printer. According to the Windows 95 resource kit, Windows 95 should allow this. I attempted to set the arp cache just the manual described: arp -s 192.246.0.25 00-40-11-16-b1-c8 However, when I check the cache to see if the static arp entry is there, I get nothing.. arp -a <no arp entries> Does anyone know why arp commands don't seem to work right on Windows 95? I used Windows NT to issue the exact same commands and it worked fine. I was able to set up my printer correctly with NT. I tried this on two different Windows 95 systems and they both exhibited similar behaviour. Steve |