Multiple IP addresses mess up mapped network drives RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • We have Windows Vista Ultimate on brand new computers.

    They connect to the network just fine.  We can browse to our servers and map network drives.

    If you add a secondary ip address, if that ip address is lower in number than the static ip address set on the network card, and reboot ever, the mapped network drive no longer works.  I'll try to explain it in more detail:

    Lets say my static ip address is
    -I map my M: drive to a network server.  It works fine and I can access it like any other drive.
    -I need to add a secondary ip to my pc to work on something else.  I add to my network card.
    --My drive mapping is still there, it still works just fine.
    --I am able to access the other devices on the 10. network.

    -The following day I have to reboot for whatever reason.
    -The M: drive is no longer available and I can no longer see the server when I browse the network to look for it to remap the drive letter.
    -Both ip's are still listed in my network cards tcpip settings.

    -I remove the
    -I browse the network again and now I can see the server and remap the network drive.
    -I can re-add the ip and everything stays working as before.  Until I reboot.

    -Testing this same thing but using a higher numerical ip addres (not using the, something like, does not affect anything.  As long as your secondary ip's are higher than the one you have assigned as your primary, then there is no issue.

    So, what it looks like is Vista is allowing you to add whatever secondary ip's that you want, but if any of them are lower than the static ip you first setup in numerical value, any network drive mappings are gone the next time you reboot.  I assume because Vista is taking the lowest ip address (numerically speaking) and using it as your primary ip for that computer.

    Anyone seen this or know how to fix it?  I'd report it to Microsoft directly but apparently the only way to do that, that I've found so far is to pay to talk to them to report it.  Any help is appreciated, thanks for your time.

    Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:12 PM

All replies

  • Sorry folks - I obviously asked this in the wrong forum.
    Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:22 PM