Network Location Awareness

One of my problems with Vista is with the connection being broken after
returning from hibernation.

My home network is using NAT, I save my network configuration in the
alternate configuration section of the TCP/IP properties. This way I can
still use DHCP in other wireless networks without having to change my
settings. This has always worked fine in WINXP, but after returning from
hibernation, Vista is trying to connect via DHCP for like 10 minutes instead
of retrieving the settings from the Alternate Configuration. The NLA API
shows that it is "Identifying," and it gets stuck there for 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, the details for the connection show that it is connected and has
retrieved the DNS settings from the Alternate Configuration. But the IP,
subnet, and gateway address are what take so long. I'm sure there are more
people out there using NAT and DHCP who are having this problem. If DHCP is
not available isn't it suppose to attempt to use the Alternate Configuration
much quicker than the response that I am getting?

if anyone shed some light on this, or at least test it themselves, I would
really appreciate it.

I am having exactly the same issue, can anyone else help please?
Thanks
Harold-

"Emiliano" wrote:

> One of my problems with Vista is with the connection being broken after
> returning from hibernation.
>
> My home network is using NAT, I save my network configuration in the
> alternate configuration section of the TCP/IP properties. This way I can
> still use DHCP in other wireless networks without having to change my
> settings. This has always worked fine in WINXP, but after returning from
> hibernation, Vista is trying to connect via DHCP for like 10 minutes instead
> of retrieving the settings from the Alternate Configuration. The NLA API
> shows that it is "Identifying," and it gets stuck there for 10 minutes.
> Meanwhile, the details for the connection show that it is connected and has
> retrieved the DNS settings from the Alternate Configuration. But the IP,
> subnet, and gateway address are what take so long. I'm sure there are more
> people out there using NAT and DHCP who are having this problem. If DHCP is
> not available isn't it suppose to attempt to use the Alternate Configuration
> much quicker than the response that I am getting?
>
> if anyone shed some light on this, or at least test it themselves, I would
> really appreciate it.

You may want to reset up power settings on NIC. This post may help,

Vista: after hibernate it can't ...Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:03 pm Post
subject: Vista: after hibernate it can't find my wireless network, Reply
with quote ...
http://www.chicagotech.net/netforums...opic.php?t=331


--
Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on
http://www.HowToNetworking.com


"Harold" <Harold@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:95A0CDC5-E6F6-47C0-9630-ECDE932E1041@microsoft.com...
>I am having exactly the same issue, can anyone else help please?
> Thanks
> Harold-
>
> "Emiliano" wrote:
>
>> One of my problems with Vista is with the connection being broken after
>> returning from hibernation.
>>
>> My home network is using NAT, I save my network configuration in the
>> alternate configuration section of the TCP/IP properties. This way I can
>> still use DHCP in other wireless networks without having to change my
>> settings. This has always worked fine in WINXP, but after returning from
>> hibernation, Vista is trying to connect via DHCP for like 10 minutes
>> instead
>> of retrieving the settings from the Alternate Configuration. The NLA API
>> shows that it is "Identifying," and it gets stuck there for 10 minutes.
>> Meanwhile, the details for the connection show that it is connected and
>> has
>> retrieved the DNS settings from the Alternate Configuration. But the IP,
>> subnet, and gateway address are what take so long. I'm sure there are
>> more
>> people out there using NAT and DHCP who are having this problem. If DHCP
>> is
>> not available isn't it suppose to attempt to use the Alternate
>> Configuration
>> much quicker than the response that I am getting?
>>
>> if anyone shed some light on this, or at least test it themselves, I
>> would
>> really appreciate it.