1

We used to use cheap Linksys home WAPs in our warehouse. I'm trying to upgrade to SonicPoints to use with our SonicWall firewall. So before, all my Motorola MC9090 CE devices were on the same subnet as the rest of the network and they accessed my UNCs just fine. Well now they're on a different subnet and they wont access any of my UNCs. They can ping the server and return the right IP (different subnet) but Compact Framework 2 claims my UNC folder paths are...FALSE. So here's a quick run down of my current setup.

Server Share - 10.10.10.216 - \\STORE1\Data\ MC9090 CE Device - 10.10.10.20 If (Directory.Exists("\\STORE1\Data\") = TRUE

MC9090 CE Device - 10.10.30.20 If (Directory.Exists("\\STORE1\Data\") = FALSE ping STORE1 - returns 10.10.10.216 and good result

Random laptop running Win10 - 10.10.30.30 If (Directory.Exists("\\STORE1\Data\") = TRUE

So based on the laptop my routes are fine. It can access the share on the other subnet just fine. So I decided to create a share on the .30 subnet and see what happens.

Server Share - 10.10.30.30 - \\RANDOMLAPTOP\Data\ MC9090 CE Device - 10.10.10.20 If (Directory.Exists("\\RANDOMLAPTOP\Data\") = FALSE

MC9090 CE Device - 10.10.30.20 If (Directory.Exists("\\RANDOMLAPTOP\Data\") = TRUE

Based on this I've concluded that either the CE device or Compact Framework 2 in general is not capable to accessing UNCs on different subnets? This is now beyond my wheelhouse.

If I can see and ping the server from my CE device (even on different subnets) why can't I access the UNC on that server?

EDIT:

MC9090 CE Device - 10.10.30.12:

ping store1 Reply from 10.10.10.216: Echo size=32 time=21ms TTL=128 Reply from 10.10.10.216: Echo size=32 time=11ms TTL=128 Reply from 10.10.10.216: Echo size=32 time=15ms TTL=128 Reply from 10.10.10.216: Echo size=32 time=5ms TTL=128

net use * \\store1\data (with or without username) Command failed: status 53

Status 53 meaning:

"The Error 53 message is generally returned when name resolution fails for a particular computer name. Error 53 can also occur when there is a problem establishing a NetBIOS session."

Name resolution clearly isn't a problem and NETBIOS isn't a problem if it was on the same subnet. Is this some sort of ancient OS problem between subnets? At least this proves Compact Framework isn't the problem.

4
  • I had the exact same behavior on my Panel PC, Windows CE 5.0 couldn't even connect a device with a subnet mask of 255.0.0.0 to a device with 255.255.255.0 (both devices were in 192.168.0.*). it only started working when both devices were 255.255.255.0 -- it seems like routing is extremely limited on some CE devices. – jrh Jan 27 '17 at 20:27
  • Every instance I've found of this issue on the net points to the same thing. It just can't do it. – Justin Emlay Jan 27 '17 at 23:54
  • I'll do some research and see if I can figure out what's going on here, I ordered a book but it hasn't arrived yet; I'll post an answer if I can find a good explanation. – jrh Jan 29 '17 at 16:57
  • jrh, I appreciate your time! – Justin Emlay Jan 29 '17 at 22:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.