Can't print to TCP printer

[Dave]

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:1olk161diuqs1f5c3pqpjuocsv81mo06pi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:28:04 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure why, but I was having trouble with an HP printer
>>communicating
>>through the router firewall even though the computer could see the printer
>>and had it's IP and MAC addresses.
>
> That's a pretty uncommon configuration (for home/SOHO anyway), to have
> a router in between the computers and the printer. Much more often,
> even if everything is physically connected to a "router", the devices
> on the LAN side are only separated by a switch (I mean the switch
> inside the router). Thus, router firewall and opening various ports
> are completely unrelated and unnecessary to proper operation.
>
>>Router tech support told me to manually
>>add access for ports 90 & 95, even though I had all ports open access for
>>the printer. Haven't had a chance to research it and it didn't work for
>>me,
>>but maybe it will help you.
>
> I'm curious to know how things are physically connected. It's likely
> that ports didn't need to be opened.
>

Router connected to computer. Printer, cable modem and backup drive
connected to router. That way I can print, connect to internet or backup my
laptop without having to have desktop running. Is this uncommon?
Dave

 

[Char Jackson]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:14:48 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
wrote:

>
>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1olk161diuqs1f5c3pqpjuocsv81mo06pi@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:28:04 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure why, but I was having trouble with an HP printer
>>>communicating
>>>through the router firewall even though the computer could see the printer
>>>and had it's IP and MAC addresses.
>>
>> That's a pretty uncommon configuration (for home/SOHO anyway), to have
>> a router in between the computers and the printer. Much more often,
>> even if everything is physically connected to a "router", the devices
>> on the LAN side are only separated by a switch (I mean the switch
>> inside the router). Thus, router firewall and opening various ports
>> are completely unrelated and unnecessary to proper operation.
>>
>>>Router tech support told me to manually
>>>add access for ports 90 & 95, even though I had all ports open access for
>>>the printer. Haven't had a chance to research it and it didn't work for
>>>me,
>>>but maybe it will help you.
>>
>> I'm curious to know how things are physically connected. It's likely
>> that ports didn't need to be opened.
>>
>
>Router connected to computer. Printer, cable modem and backup drive
>connected to router. That way I can print, connect to internet or backup my
>laptop without having to have desktop running. Is this uncommon?
>Dave

What's common is to connect the cable modem to the WAN side of the
router and everything else to the LAN side of the router. I suspect
this is what you're doing.

If so, there is no router between your computer(s), your printer, and
your backup drive. There is only a Layer 2 switch connecting each of
those devices to each other. Therefore, since there is no router in
the mix, there are no firewall or port issues that need to be
considered or dealt with.

On the WAN side, the cable modem connects to the actual router (not
the little box we commonly call a router, but to the actual router
that's inside that box.) In turn, the other side of the router is
connected to the switch via a bridge.

It may help to remind folks that a typical "router" contains a router,
a switch, and a bridge. The bridge connects the router to the switch.
If it's a "wireless router", there will also be an access point
connected to the switch.

 

[Bob I]

On 6/17/2010 5:08 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
> "Dave"<davidj92@wowway.com> wrote in message
> news:M5udnTY6Ldb6L4TRnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@sigecom.net...
>>
>
> <cut>
>
>> I'm not sure why, but I was having trouble with an HP printer
>> communicating through the router firewall even though the computer could
>> see the printer and had it's IP and MAC addresses. Router tech support
>> told me to manually add access for ports 90& 95, even though I had all
>> ports open access for the printer. Haven't had a chance to research it and
>> it didn't work for me, but maybe it will help you.
>> One other thought, I'm not sure why, but I hooked my printer up direct to
>> computer with ethernet cable, installed it on the computer and
>> communications were good. Shut printer off, removed it from the list of
>> printers in control panel, then hooked printer back up to router with
>> ethernet cable. Went back into software install and told it to add a
>> device and selected a wired ethernet connected printer, which it found and
>> installed and communications with printer were good. The only reason I can
>> think of is there was a file not being installed, that the printer needed
>> for communications, when I was trying to install it with it connected to
>> router, but when it was connected direct to computer the file got
>> installed. When I then connected printer to router the file was on the
>> computer that it needed. All speculation, but I'm super-anal and it has
>> kept me from going completely crazy.
>> Might be worth a shot for you.
>> HTH,
>> Dave
>
> Strange things happen with printers ...
> I connected the printer locally and the driver installed perfectly.
> I hooked the printer to the server again, I could find the networked printer
> on the laptop but wasn't able to install a driver. It insisted to find an
> .INF file - which I only have from the XP32 driver on the server. It didn't
> like that one.
> So this did not work for me.
> The only way to install the driver on the laptop is either locally or as a
> TCP printer.
> And that doesn't print.
> Thanks anyway
>

Did you install the driver for Win 7 on the "server" in the "other
operating systems" options during the install. I don't have a set up to
try it on but am going from memory.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:qoex2ioreezb$.189kcdn2h7oni.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:02:46 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:1ew3w58c2ov2g$.amumoghexita.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:14:47 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:r47xro65hgkf$.cvrh50r0rgy9$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:55:09 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Parko" <noneofyourbloddybusinesss@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Z8KRn.2851$Ls1.2426@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:49:08 +0200, Fokke Nauta sgraffire:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have a new laptop with Win 7 64 bits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If its in 64 bits I'd take it back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Parko's reply was a bad pun, even for a native speaker of English
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible, but not certain, that a driver for Windows Vista would
>>>>> work
>>>>> on your laptop. Check on the printer manufacturer's site...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right, in many occasions this would work. I already searched
>>>> for
>>>> a
>>>> Vista driver for my printer. None available.
>>>> I guess the printer (HP3650) is already too old.
>>>>
>>>> Fokke
>>>
>>> Sounds like. BTW - I like the word "superannuated" - it applies to me as
>>> well as to your printer
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
>>>
>>
>> To me as well
>> Can still remember the days of CP/M.
>
> I started in Fortran II and FAP on IBM 7090's in the early 60's. My phone
> is much more powerful and has a far better user interface than those
> machines, but it's much smaller
>
> But now I have to learn Java and Android programming for the phone I want
> to get next.

Programming nowadays is easier than in Fortran and Cobol.
They were the first serious programming languages, I thought.

>
>> But the printer complies with W7. I can install a driver when I connect
>> the
>> printer directly.
>>
>> BTW, the laptop was in one piece
>
> Oh, it must be a 1-bit computer.

Yes, with a 1-bit processor with real radio tubes!

>
> ...I would apologize for that remark, but I am by nature shameless
>

Nothing wrong with that !
You could be Dutch

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QvzSn.29230$%u7.2969@newsfe14.iad...
>
>

<cut>

>
> Did you install the driver for Win 7 on the "server" in the "other
> operating systems" options during the install. I don't have a set up to
> try it on but am going from memory.
>

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
On the server there is only 1 driver, for XP 32-bits, which is the OS on the
server.
Windows 7 on the laptop installs a driver when I connect the printer
locally. It simply won't install the driver for the network printer, hence
my attempt to print with TCP.

I am a bit closer now.
On the server I had the TCP service enabled and I created an LPR port. I
thought this was enough to have a TCP print server.
I found out that I had to install a raw print server, which I found on the
web. I installed it and Hey Presto! I was able to print.
However, not quite. The testpage comes out only half printed, the printer on
the laptop says "Printer error" and the job remains in the local queue.
I then installed a TCP printer on one of the other machines in the LAN (XP
Pro 32) and here it works flawlessly. That means that the raw print server
is OK but there is still an issue with W 7.

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:40ijjgshnrr5$.zrjgx86qnmu2$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:59:08 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>

<cut>

> I am a little bit out of my depth here, but I'll take a chance and waste
> your time with what I think.
>
> As I understand it (and as I think I recall), installing the driver
> directly (via USB, for example) on the problem computer (call that
> computer
> "A") is a necessary first step to using the printer on the network.
>
> The second step is to then connect the computer via the network instead of
> directly to A (or just remove the USB connection from A, since the printer
> is probably already on the network)
>
> The third step is go to the printer's settings on A, go to the Ports tab,
> and choose the network as the port for the computer.
>
> This should now allow you to print from A.
>
> I believe this is not new to you, but I am posting it just in case it is
> different from what you have already tried.
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
>

I am a bit closer now.
On the server I had the TCP service enabled and I created an LPR port. I
thought this was enough to have a TCP print server.
I found out that I had to install a raw print server, which I found on the
web. I installed it and Hey Presto! I was able to print.
However, not quite. The testpage comes out only half printed, the printer on
the laptop says "Printer error" and the job remains in the local queue.
I then installed a TCP printer on one of the other machines in the LAN (XP
Pro 32) and here it works flawlessly. That means that the raw print server
is OK but there is still an issue with W 7.

Fokke

 

[Dave]

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:jc5l16p4igeoaemq5daj7guj80lfhf451c@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:14:48 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:1olk161diuqs1f5c3pqpjuocsv81mo06pi@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:28:04 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure why, but I was having trouble with an HP printer
>>>>communicating
>>>>through the router firewall even though the computer could see the
>>>>printer
>>>>and had it's IP and MAC addresses.
>>>
>>> That's a pretty uncommon configuration (for home/SOHO anyway), to have
>>> a router in between the computers and the printer. Much more often,
>>> even if everything is physically connected to a "router", the devices
>>> on the LAN side are only separated by a switch (I mean the switch
>>> inside the router). Thus, router firewall and opening various ports
>>> are completely unrelated and unnecessary to proper operation.
>>>
>>>>Router tech support told me to manually
>>>>add access for ports 90 & 95, even though I had all ports open access
>>>>for
>>>>the printer. Haven't had a chance to research it and it didn't work for
>>>>me,
>>>>but maybe it will help you.
>>>
>>> I'm curious to know how things are physically connected. It's likely
>>> that ports didn't need to be opened.
>>>
>>
>>Router connected to computer. Printer, cable modem and backup drive
>>connected to router. That way I can print, connect to internet or backup
>>my
>>laptop without having to have desktop running. Is this uncommon?
>>Dave
>
> What's common is to connect the cable modem to the WAN side of the
> router and everything else to the LAN side of the router. I suspect
> this is what you're doing.
>
> If so, there is no router between your computer(s), your printer, and
> your backup drive. There is only a Layer 2 switch connecting each of
> those devices to each other. Therefore, since there is no router in
> the mix, there are no firewall or port issues that need to be
> considered or dealt with.
>
> On the WAN side, the cable modem connects to the actual router (not
> the little box we commonly call a router, but to the actual router
> that's inside that box.) In turn, the other side of the router is
> connected to the switch via a bridge.
>
> It may help to remind folks that a typical "router" contains a router,
> a switch, and a bridge. The bridge connects the router to the switch.
> If it's a "wireless router", there will also be an access point
> connected to the switch.
>

You definitely know more about networking than I do and I can see by your
reply I wasn't specific enough. On my router, Belkin N+, there is a
designated ethernet port for the cable modem, a USB port for the backup
drive and four "wired" (that is their name on the router) ethernet ports.
The computer and printer are connected to individual "wired" ports. Would
this fit the "LAN"/"WAN" description you gave? Is there a better way to
configure this? (My most important consideration is being able to print from
my laptop with the desktop off.)
When I hooked up the first printer, I could not get full communications
between desktop and printer until I allowed access to all ports for the
printer in the firewall. On the second, no change on port access made any
difference.

 

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:50:26 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
wrote:

>
>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:jc5l16p4igeoaemq5daj7guj80lfhf451c@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:14:48 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:1olk161diuqs1f5c3pqpjuocsv81mo06pi@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:28:04 -0500, "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure why, but I was having trouble with an HP printer
>>>>>communicating
>>>>>through the router firewall even though the computer could see the
>>>>>printer
>>>>>and had it's IP and MAC addresses.
>>>>
>>>> That's a pretty uncommon configuration (for home/SOHO anyway), to have
>>>> a router in between the computers and the printer. Much more often,
>>>> even if everything is physically connected to a "router", the devices
>>>> on the LAN side are only separated by a switch (I mean the switch
>>>> inside the router). Thus, router firewall and opening various ports
>>>> are completely unrelated and unnecessary to proper operation.
>>>>
>>>>>Router tech support told me to manually
>>>>>add access for ports 90 & 95, even though I had all ports open access
>>>>>for
>>>>>the printer. Haven't had a chance to research it and it didn't work for
>>>>>me,
>>>>>but maybe it will help you.
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious to know how things are physically connected. It's likely
>>>> that ports didn't need to be opened.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Router connected to computer. Printer, cable modem and backup drive
>>>connected to router. That way I can print, connect to internet or backup
>>>my
>>>laptop without having to have desktop running. Is this uncommon?
>>>Dave
>>
>> What's common is to connect the cable modem to the WAN side of the
>> router and everything else to the LAN side of the router. I suspect
>> this is what you're doing.
>>
>> If so, there is no router between your computer(s), your printer, and
>> your backup drive. There is only a Layer 2 switch connecting each of
>> those devices to each other. Therefore, since there is no router in
>> the mix, there are no firewall or port issues that need to be
>> considered or dealt with.
>>
>> On the WAN side, the cable modem connects to the actual router (not
>> the little box we commonly call a router, but to the actual router
>> that's inside that box.) In turn, the other side of the router is
>> connected to the switch via a bridge.
>>
>> It may help to remind folks that a typical "router" contains a router,
>> a switch, and a bridge. The bridge connects the router to the switch.
>> If it's a "wireless router", there will also be an access point
>> connected to the switch.
>>
>
>You definitely know more about networking than I do and I can see by your
>reply I wasn't specific enough. On my router, Belkin N+, there is a
>designated ethernet port for the cable modem,

Yep, that's the WAN port. Internally, it connects to one side of the
'router'. Still internally, the other side of the router is bridged to
a switch.

> a USB port for the backup drive

The USB controller is bridged to the switch.

>and four "wired" (that is their name on the router) ethernet ports.

Those are additional switch ports. Internally, there's another switch
port that connects to the bridge and provides connectivity to the
router.

It's a bit weird and confusing to bundle all of those components into
what we call a router since the router is only one piece of the pie,
but that's the convention.

>The computer and printer are connected to individual "wired" ports. Would
>this fit the "LAN"/"WAN" description you gave?

Yes, those are LAN ports. The entire switch section is on the LAN.

>Is there a better way to configure this? (My most important consideration
>is being able to print from my laptop with the desktop off.)

No, it sounds like you have it right. I should probably apologize for
the distraction, but I just wanted to get maximum clarity, so my
apologies and thanks for the replies.

>When I hooked up the first printer, I could not get full communications
>between desktop and printer until I allowed access to all ports for the
>printer in the firewall. On the second, no change on port access made any
>difference.

When you first mentioned ports and firewalls, I assumed you were
talking about configuring your router device, but that wouldn't make
sense (because the router's port and firewall settings don't affect
the operation of the LAN), so I see now that you've been referring to
ports and firewalls on individual PC's. Carry on!

 

[Bob I]

On 6/18/2010 4:42 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
> "Bob I"<birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:QvzSn.29230$%u7.2969@newsfe14.iad...
>>
>>
>
> <cut>
>
>>
>> Did you install the driver for Win 7 on the "server" in the "other
>> operating systems" options during the install. I don't have a set up to
>> try it on but am going from memory.
>>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean.
> On the server there is only 1 driver, for XP 32-bits, which is the OS on the
> server.
> Windows 7 on the laptop installs a driver when I connect the printer
> locally. It simply won't install the driver for the network printer, hence
> my attempt to print with TCP.
>
> I am a bit closer now.
> On the server I had the TCP service enabled and I created an LPR port. I
> thought this was enough to have a TCP print server.
> I found out that I had to install a raw print server, which I found on the
> web. I installed it and Hey Presto! I was able to print.
> However, not quite. The testpage comes out only half printed, the printer on
> the laptop says "Printer error" and the job remains in the local queue.
> I then installed a TCP printer on one of the other machines in the LAN (XP
> Pro 32) and here it works flawlessly. That means that the raw print server
> is OK but there is still an issue with W 7.
>

When you installed and shared the printer it has some dialog about
installing drivers for other operating systems that you will be printing
from. I don't know how to say it any differently.