> Do you have the NIC settings set to NAT, or the real NIC in the VM settings?

> Using Windows 7 version of VPC as host, and a somewhat messed up P2V job
> I did with an old XP/SP3 system as guest.
>
> Host can ping guest, and guest can ping host. Guest can't get beyond
> host for anything, not even to the common gateway.
>
> No difference results based on whether firewall on either host or guest
> is enabled or not.
>
> Other guests on this host have no trouble "getting out" to rest of network.
>
> What else might be blocking guest from seeing the entire network?
>

> Robert Comer wrote :
>> Do you have the NIC settings set to NAT, or the real NIC in the VM
>> settings?
>
> Ummmm, where might I look for that?
>

> It's in the settings for the VM. (on the host, Virtual PC folder)

> Yep, or whichever NIC you're using right now.

>> Well, when I set Adapter 1 to the NIC in the box, I'm back to where I
>> started. (Probably because I disabled the other within the VM.) Host
>> can ping guest and guest can ping host, but guest can't get beyond
>> host.
>
> DHCP or a fixed address?
> Check your gateway address on both the host
> and the guest to see if they are the same.
> Is this at home or work?
> Make sure the VM is in the same subnet as the other PC's too.
> You might try and just delete the connection and reboot to let it
> recreate it -- it might be corrupt.

> Robert Comer explained :
>> You might try and just delete the connection and reboot to let it
>> recreate it -- it might be corrupt.
>
> Okay, wth, not the first time that would've helped.

>Robert Comer formulated the question :
>> It's in the settings for the VM. (on the host, Virtual PC folder)
>
>Ahhh. Okay, now, mind you, this is that "frankenclone" system I've
>been at odds with for a few days, so I didn't intentionally do this and
>cannot begin to tell you what's up with it. <g> It's set to:
>
>Adapter 1: Intel(R) WiFi Link 5100 AGN
>Adapter 2: Intel(R) 82567LM Gigabit Network Connection
>
>Looking at the settings for the XP Mode machine, I see it set to use
>NAT. I take it that's how I should configure this other VM?

>started. (Probably because I disabled the other within the VM.) Host
>can ping guest and guest can ping host, but guest can't get beyond
>host.
>Robert Comer formulated on Thursday :
>> Yep, or whichever NIC you're using right now.
>
>Well, when I set Adapter 1 to the NIC in the box, I'm back to where I
>started. (Probably because I disabled the other within the VM.) Host
>can ping guest and guest can ping host, but guest can't get beyond
>host.
>
>If I set it to use NAT, neither can ping the other. Timeouts when
>guest pings host (or anything else), and destination unreachable when
>host pings guest.

> Save removing it for later...
> When you set it to NAT, did you change it to DHCP, you'll have to do
> that. It should allow you to reach everything outside the host, but
> nothing will be able to get into the VM from outside.
> If one VM works with NAT, this one should too...
>
> Do you have some kind of 3rd party firewall in the VM?

> I get that VPCbus thing too, never figured out why.

>Karl E. Peterson explained on 12/3/2009 :
>> Robert Comer explained :
>>> You might try and just delete the connection and reboot to let it
>>> recreate it -- it might be corrupt.
>>
>> Okay, wth, not the first time that would've helped.
>
>Huh. Sucker won't let me delete it.

>Robert Comer explained :
>>> Well, when I set Adapter 1 to the NIC in the box, I'm back to where I
>>> started. (Probably because I disabled the other within the VM.) Host
>>> can ping guest and guest can ping host, but guest can't get beyond
>>> host.
>>
>> DHCP or a fixed address?
>
>Fixed.
>
>> Check your gateway address on both the host
>> and the guest to see if they are the same.
>
>Check.
>
>> Is this at home or work?
>
>Work. Though I'd like the VM to be portable. It is on a laptop. I'm
>on a wired connection at the moment.
>
>> Make sure the VM is in the same subnet as the other PC's too.
>
>Yep.
>
>> You might try and just delete the connection and reboot to let it
>> recreate it -- it might be corrupt.
>
>Okay, wth, not the first time that would've helped.
>
>There is also an Unknown Device I haven't figured out yet. Probably
>not related to the networking, but I think it may be VPC related as
>it's device ID is "ACPI\VPCBUS\4&4B01EB&0"

> on 12/3/2009, Robert Comer supposed :
>> Save removing it for later...
>
> Check. <g>
>
>> When you set it to NAT, did you change it to DHCP, you'll have to do
>> that. It should allow you to reach everything outside the host, but
>> nothing will be able to get into the VM from outside.
>
> He shoots; he scores! Damn, I don't believe I missed that.
>
>> If one VM works with NAT, this one should too...
>>
>> Do you have some kind of 3rd party firewall in the VM?
>
> Nope. Seems to be working just fine, now. :-)
>
> Well, with one little oddity. I can resolve the ip address for other
> machines on the network, it seems. All but one. The host. What's up
> with that?
>

> Robert Comer wrote :
>> I get that VPCbus thing too, never figured out why.
>
> Weird, huh? So just disable the sucker and move on?
>

> > He shoots; he scores! Damn, I don't believe I missed that.
>
> I usually get caught by that one too since they changed the default to NAT.
> <g>
>
> > Well, with one little oddity. I can resolve the ip address for other
> > machines on the network, it seems. All but one. The host. What's up
> > with that?
>
> There is some weirdness between the host and guest, performance problems, and
> that might be what's getting in the way. You might be able to just use the
> IP Address, or put it in the lmhosts file.

>> Any reason in particular for using lmhosts rather than hosts?
>
> lmhosts works better for netbios.

> Robert Comer expressed precisely :
>> > He shoots; he scores! Damn, I don't believe I missed that.
>>
>> I usually get caught by that one too since they changed the default to
>> NAT. <g>
>>
>> > Well, with one little oddity. I can resolve the ip address for other
>> > machines on the network, it seems. All but one. The host. What's up
>> > with that?
>>
>> There is some weirdness between the host and guest, performance
>> problems, and that might be what's getting in the way. You might be
>> able to just use the IP Address, or put it in the lmhosts file.
>
> Any reason in particular for using lmhosts rather than hosts?
>