Network Bridging and IBM/Lenovo Access Connections

[srv1973]

Hi all,

I've been trying to follow the various guides on how to set up a host interface via network bridging on a Windows XP host. I'm pretty sure I'm following all the required steps correctly, but I'm running into an issue.

I am using IBM/Lenovo Access Connections (AC) on my laptop to manage all my network connections. The available guides say that you need to copy your old network settings to the Network Bridge. In my case (with AC) I cannot do that: each connection profile in AC directly uses the physical network adapter. This seems to conflict with the XP network bridge.

So if I set up a network bridge, AC tries to establish a network connection via the physical (wireless) network adapter, which fails.

I hate to say this, but with VMWare (WorkStation 6.x) this scenario works just fine: I just created a host interface and told my guest OS to use it.

Any tips on how to get VirtualBox, Network Bridge and IBM Access Connections to play nicely together?

[Sasquatch]

If you're trying to bridge your wifi, you won't succeed. You can't bridge wireless adapters, they don't support the bridge requirements and the bridge doesn't support the wireless extensions. You have to use a different method for this, like Internet Connection Sharing, or NAT networking.

[srv1973]

How does VMWare do this then? I'm currently writing this post using a Hardy guest on Windows XP, with a Host Interface that is bound to my Wireless Adapter, and has received its IP settings via DHCP directly from my wireless router...

Can I replicate that setup somehow with VirtualBox?

[carrera4life]

If you're trying to bridge your wifi, you won't succeed. You can't bridge wireless adapters, they don't support the bridge requirements and the bridge doesn't support the wireless extensions. You have to use a different method for this, like Internet Connection Sharing, or NAT networking.

Sorry, this isn't true. Following the instructions here: http://purpleflute.juzblog.juzweb.com/2 ... rking-inf/ gets it working fine.

XP host, Solaris 10 06/06 guest

[Sasquatch]

If you're trying to bridge your wifi, you won't succeed. You can't bridge wireless adapters, they don't support the bridge requirements and the bridge doesn't support the wireless extensions. You have to use a different method for this, like Internet Connection Sharing, or NAT networking.

Sorry, this isn't true. Following the instructions here: http://purpleflute.juzblog.juzweb.com/2 ... rking-inf/ gets it working fine.

XP host, Solaris 10 06/06 guest

It is true that some wireless cards can be used by a bridge, but they have to support promiscuous mode, and not all do that. In fact, only a few are able to do that. I've read this MS article that explains it.

[srv1973]

If you're trying to bridge your wifi, you won't succeed. You can't bridge wireless adapters, they don't support the bridge requirements and the bridge doesn't support the wireless extensions. You have to use a different method for this, like Internet Connection Sharing, or NAT networking.

Sorry, this isn't true. Following the instructions here: http://purpleflute.juzblog.juzweb.com/2 ... rking-inf/ gets it working fine.

XP host, Solaris 10 06/06 guest

It is true that some wireless cards can be used by a bridge, but they have to support promiscuous mode, and not all do that. In fact, only a few are able to do that. I've read this MS article that explains it.

So, that leads me to 2 questions:
1. Is there a list somewhere of the wireless adapters this works for? The article at http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... S;Q302348& only lists 3 adapters, mine is not in it. Btw. my laptop has an Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG adapter.
2. Does anybody on this forum use a ThinkPad with Access Connections, and did you ever manage to get this working?

As i do every couple of months, today I tried again to get VirtualBox to use a bridged network connection, but still no luck. It's the only reason I'm sticking to VMWare Workstation, really... Somehow they manage to directly access the physical network adapter, instead of creating a bridge first.

Rgds

[Sasquatch]

I have the same wireless card, but never got it into promisc mode by putting it in a bridge.

[srv1973]

Hmmm, seems like I'm out-of-luck then... bummer...

Thanks for replying with this information, at least I know I'm not alone, and that I'm probably wasting my time trying to get this working!

[luvit]

Sorry, this isn't true. Following the instructions here: http://purpleflute.juzblog.juzweb.com/2 ... rking-inf/ gets it working fine.

XP host, Solaris 10 06/06 guest

this work'd for me... i;m forever in debt to you. tanks...

[srv1973]

As i do every couple of months, today I tried again to get VirtualBox to use a bridged network connection, but still no luck. It's the only reason I'm sticking to VMWare Workstation, really... Somehow they manage to directly access the physical network adapter, instead of creating a bridge first.

Rgds

So, I read about the 2.1.0 release, and that there is a new way to configure host interface networking. So I installed 2.1.0, and it works beautifully!

I said that I only stuck with VMWare because it was better in host interface networking, but that doesn't seem true anymore. So, I will run VirtualBox and VMWare in parallel for a while, to make sure VirtualBox 2.1.0 is stable enough for my needs. If it is, I'll probably switch permanently.

Rgds

[Sasquatch]

Great. Just don't use them at the same time, as that will cause problems. Especially if you have the virtualisation extention in your CPU and use it.

[Nomad_RJ]

As i do every couple of months, today I tried again to get VirtualBox to use a bridged network connection, but still no luck. It's the only reason I'm sticking to VMWare Workstation, really... Somehow they manage to directly access the physical network adapter, instead of creating a bridge first.

Rgds

So, I read about the 2.1.0 release, and that there is a new way to configure host interface networking. So I installed 2.1.0, and it works beautifully!

I said that I only stuck with VMWare because it was better in host interface networking, but that doesn't seem true anymore. So, I will run VirtualBox and VMWare in parallel for a while, to make sure VirtualBox 2.1.0 is stable enough for my needs. If it is, I'll probably switch permanently.

Rgds

Yes, it also worked fine for me! Goodbye VMware.....

[ ]s
Nomad_RJ