You could create a hardware profile in which the wireless device is disabled.
This Microsoft article provides an overview of hardware profiles. That's not really automated, but it should comply with the company's security policy without having to reconfigure the network adapters every time the system is moved.
OK, this is a begining. I can clearly see that a hardware profile could be a solution. However I'm not so sure how the binding order will prevent the 'unconnected' interface from connecting.
Ideally, the situation would be for either adapter to connect to whichever interface is available. That is, if I plug in a cable, the wired interface would become active. At the same time, once this has occured, the wireless adapter would NOT accept a connection. And, of course, I'd like this to work the other way around.
As to the routing capability between the interfaces, I do recall that. Where is that disabled in W2K?
That's how binding order nad route interface metric do. In binding order, you tell Windows to use the nic on top first. If windows can not communicate through the top interface, then it will use the next one on the list, and so on. The same goes with route metric. You assign a higher metric for slower interface, telling Windows to use the faster interface first unless it is not availabe(not connected)
jwatt
4.4K Posts
0
March 5th, 2005 04:00
You could create a hardware profile in which the wireless device is disabled. This Microsoft article provides an overview of hardware profiles. That's not really automated, but it should comply with the company's security policy without having to reconfigure the network adapters every time the system is moved.
Jim
PovHum
123 Posts
0
March 7th, 2005 00:00
qlanus
2 Posts
0
March 7th, 2005 12:00
Ideally, the situation would be for either adapter to connect to whichever interface is available. That is, if I plug in a cable, the wired interface would become active. At the same time, once this has occured, the wireless adapter would NOT accept a connection. And, of course, I'd like this to work the other way around.
As to the routing capability between the interfaces, I do recall that. Where is that disabled in W2K?
Thanks again for your input.
PovHum
123 Posts
0
March 7th, 2005 21:00