I/O addresses conflict with KT4AV

Hi,
My system: KT4AV, Athlon 2800+, 512 MB, Radeon 9200, Windows 2000 pro.
When I install normally Windows 2000 pro the computer type in device manager is Uniprocessor ACPI. BUT I also get a Hardware I/O addresses conflict on motherboard resources: conflicts with DMA, Keyboard, System timer, ...(Address range 0800-087F).
I would like to keep ACPI HAL but I would ALSO like to get rid of these conflicts!
Any help appreciated.
Regs

Don't know too much about Windows 2000, I'm afraid. Checked Windows, but I guess you have been there. But maybe you find what you are looking for. Hope so!
To sort of amuse you a little ironically I withsend a quote:
http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?View=en-us&p=1&s=0&c=4&st=b&qu=i%2fo+conflict+2000&na=30
"User Action:
Contact your system administrator. Check the configuration of the adapter card by selecting Network in Control Panel. Make sure the adapter card is configured according to the manufacturer's specifications and that the card's configuration does not conflict with the configurations of other hardware. "

Similar Messages

  • When syncing my iphone 6 plus, i now get an error that reads, "IP address conflicts with another system or network."  How can i eliminate this error permanently?   Thank you in advance!

    when syncing my iphone 6 plus, i now get an error that reads, "IP address conflicts with another system or network."  How can i eliminate this error permanently?   Thank you in advance!
    This never happened before, however the last couple of months it comes up every time I plug my USB from PC to iphone.

    HyperNova Software,
    Thank you so much.  Because I am very computer illiterate, could you help me on how to get started?  I don't have the slightest on where to get started, the steps to follow, etc.
    Can't thank you enough for your help!

  • IP Address Conflict with range expander

    Hi,
    I have a Linksys WRT610N router that I am trying to extend the range of using a Hawking HWREN1.  The router configures fine and I'm able to access the Internet from an attached PC.  When I hook up the Hawking extender, it configures correctly, it seems, but as soon as it saves the configuration, Windows XP on the PC tells me that there is an IP address conflict.  
    Hawking suggested a factory reset of the extender and redoing setup, which I did, with no success.  As soon as I unplug power to the extender, the error goes away, so the issue is connected to the extender.
    I've also tried using a completely different IP address range, setting the router to 192.168.2.2.  The PC is set to 192.168.2.201, and the extender to 192.168.2.202, and still I get the IP address error message.
    I'm unsure how to perform further diagnostics on this, since at least from the looks of things, there is no IP address conflict, even tho the error message says that there is.  Is there something else that could cause an IP address conflict besides the IP address itself, for example?  BTW, the extender was purchased on advice of a store clerk, who said that they'd had good luck with the Hawkings.  Is there a more appropriate product to use from Linksys.  Supposedly, the Hawking is better because it covers a larger variety of standards, even tho it is not dual band like the router.  I haven't seen any dual band extenders around.
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Thanks.
    Ron
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    If you are getting these error mesasge on your Computer, these means your Both the computers are getting the same IP address from the Router. To avoide getting these error message, you can assigne a Static IP to your Hardwired Computer.
    On your XP computer follow the settings bellow. Click on the Start button >>> Settings >>> Control Panel >>>Network Connections- Right click on the icon for Local area connection and go to properties- On the 'General' tab select 'Internet Protocol TCP/IP' and click on the Properties button- Select 'Use the following IP address'- Provide IP Address - 192.168.1.5, Subnet Mask - 255.255.255.0, Default Gateway - 192.168.1.1- Preferred DNS 192.168.1.1, Alternate DNS - 4.2.2.2 >>Click on Ok button to Save and Click on "Close" on main Properties window.
    Now check if you are Online from your computer, and i think these should solve your Problem. 

  • IP address conflict with alias

    Hello,
    I have two CSM 4.1(5) in CatOS 6509 configured in router mode.
    I have configured one client VLAN and 2 servers VLANs (with aliases IP adresses), and an ft dedicated gigabit link.
    The configuration is the same for both server VLANS :
    vlan z server
    ip address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
    alias y.y.y.y y.y.y.y
    The logs show an IP address conflict for one server VLAN with the alias IP address configured for this VLAN, whereas there is no problem for the other server VLAN.
    This problem causes the CSM going to active-active configuration for a very short time (1sec) and then going back to active-backup situation during about 30 sec.
    Does anybody have an idea about the problem ? I could not find any documentation to know if more than one server VLAN with an alias could cause a problem in router mode or an issue related to that.
    Thanks,
    Herve.

    Herve,
    should not be a problem.
    You can have as many server vlan with alias as you want.
    The CSM does box redundancy [per box not per vlan].
    So if the CSM is active, it will be active for all vlans not just a one or a few of them.
    Sniff the ft vlan and make sure there is heartbeat sent from both site.
    Sniff traffic coming in and out of both csm to make sure they both receive and transmit.
    Capture 'sho mod csm x ft detail' several times and check the transmit/receive counters.
    Gilles.

  • House bank remit address conflicts with vendor bank data in FI02

    The house bank remit address is entered in FI02 base on the bank key or ABA number.  Since maintenance of bank address is the same in FI02 for vendor banks there is the potential of a vendor using the same Bank and routine vendor bank address maintenance to conflict or change our house bank remit address. Is there a way to enter remit addresses for house banks so they can't be accessed from FI02?

    hi deepa,
    it's not good because in the free selection if we will defined house bank he will be used for all the payments in the payment run
    and we need that in the same current payment run we have for  example vendor 1 - house bank xxx for vendor 2 - house bank yyy
    etc..
    i do not see in your suggest the above situation work
    regards,
    meir

  • ERROR: mapped-address conflict with existing static

    I am trying to NAT the same external address to three different hosts but using the same port.
    static (inside,outside) tcp 63.76.x.x 8224 208.x.x.29 8224 netmask 255.255.255.255
    static (inside,outside) tcp 63.76.x.x 8224 208.x.x.23 8224 netmask 255.255.255.255
    static (inside,outside) tcp 63.76.x.x 8224 208.x.x.153 8224 netmask 255.255.255.255

    Right, I tried different scenarios but it is not possible. I should have of removed this post last week.

  • IP Address Conflict

    I am using a linksys wrt54gs router, a wre54g range expander and a wusb200 wireless adapter, there is only one computer on the network and it's set to a static IP address.  Could someone please explain to me how I'm getting an IP address conflict with another system on the network?
    Please?
    I've already been through linksys phone support.
    Twice.

    Please list all the static LAN IP addresses that you are using on your network.  Also, if you are not using the default DHCP server range of 192.168.1.100  thru  192.168.1.149 , then please state your DHCP server range.
    Is your WRE54G, using the default fixed LAN IP address of 192.168.1.240 ?
    Assuming that your addresses are all correct, then the next most likely cause for your problem is that your computer is connecting both to your router, and to your WRE54G, and the WRE54G is in turn forwarding the connection to the router.   The router sees the direct connection and the connection through the WRE54G and interprets this as two connections with the same LAN IP address.
    If this is the case, I would suggest that you try to eliminate the WRE54G.  It sounds like your wireless computer can connect directly to your router.  If you can connect, but not well, use the HGA7T high gain antennas on your WRT54GS, instead of the WRE54G.
    A third way to get an address conflict is if your neighbor has set his computer to a fixed LAN IP address, and he is also connecting to your network.  In this case, secure your wireless network.
    Message Edited by toomanydonuts on 12-10-2007 09:04 PM

  • Static Policy NAT in VPN conflicts with Static NAT

    I have a situation where I need to create a site-to-site VPN between an ASA 5505 using IOS 7.2 and a Sonicwall NSA4500. The problem arises in that the LAN behind the Cisco ASA has the same subnet as a currently existing VPN created on the Sonicwall. Since the Sonicwall can't have two VPNs both going to the same subnet, the solution is to use policy NAT on the ASA so that to the Sonicwall, the new VPN appears to have a different subnet.
    The current subnet behind the ASA is 192.168.10.0/24 (The Sonicwall already has a VPN created to a different client with that same subnet). I am trying to translate that to 192.168.24.0/24. The peer LAN (behind the Sonicwall) is 10.159.0.0/24. The pertinent configuration of the ASA is:
    interface Vlan1
    ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0
    access-list outside_1_cryptomap extended permit ip 192.168.24.0 255.255.255.0 10.159.0.0 255.255.255.0
    access-list VPN extended permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 10.159.0.0 255.255.255.0
    static (inside,outside) 192.168.24.0 access-list VPN
    crypto map outside_map 1 match address outside_1_cryptomap
    In addition to this, there are other static NAT statements and their associated ACLs that allow certain traffic through the firewall to the server, e.g.:
    static (inside,outside) tcp interface smtp SERVER smtp netmask 255.255.255.255
    The problem is this: When I enter the static policy NAT statement, I get the message "Warning: real-address conflict with existing static" and then it refers to each of the static NAT statements that translate the outside address to the server. I thought about this, and it seemed to me that the problem was that the policy NAT statement needed to be the first NAT statement (it is last) so that it would be handled first and all traffic destined for the VPN tunnel to the Sonicwall (destination 10.159.0.0/24) would be correctly handled. If I left it as the last statement, then the other static NAT statements would prevent some traffic destined for the 10.159.0.0/24 network from being correctly routed through the VPN.
    So I tried first to move my policy NAT statement up in the ASDM GUI. However, moving that statement was not permitted. Then I tried deleting the five static NAT statements that point to the server (one example is above) and then recreating them, hoping that would then move the policy NAT statement to the top. This also failed.
    What am I missing?

    Hi,
    To be honest it should work in the way I mentioned. I am not sure why it would change the order of the NAT configurations. I have run into this situation on some ASA firewalls running the older software (older than 8.2) and the reordering of the configurations has always worked.
    So I am not sure are we looking at some bug or what the problem is.
    I was wondering if one solution would be to configure all of the Static NAT / Static PAT as Static Policy NAT/PAT
    I have gotten a bit rusty on the older (8.2 and older) NAT configuration format as over 90% of our customer firewalls are running 8.3+ software.
    I was thinking of this kind of "static" configuration for the existing Static PAT configurations if you want to try
    access-list STATICPAT-SMTP permit tcp host eq smtp any
    static (inside,outside) tcp interface smtp access-list STATICPAT-SMTP
    access-list STATICPAT-HTTPS permit tcp host eq https any
    static (inside,outside) tcp interface https access-list STATICPAT-HTTPS
    access-list STATICPAT-RDP permit tcp host eq 3389 any
    static (inside,outside) tcp interface 3389 access-list STATICPAT-RDP
    access-list STATICPAT-TCP4125 permit tcp host eq 4125 any
    static (inside,outside) tcp interface 4125 access-list STATICPAT-TCP4125
    access-list STATICPAT-POP3 permit tcp host eq pop3 any
    static (inside,outside) tcp interface pop3 access-list STATICPAT-POP3
    Naturally you would add the Static Policy NAT for the VPN first.
    Again I have to say that I am not 100% sure if this was is the correct format maybe you can test it with a single service that has a Static PAT. For example the Static PAT for RDP (TCP/3389). First entering the Static Policy NAT then removing the Static PAT and then entering the Static Policy PAT.
    Remember that you should be able to test the translations with the "packet-tracer" command
    For example
    packet-tracer input outside tcp 1.1.1.1 12345
    - Jouni

  • IP address conflict - Personal Router ValetPlus M20

    We are having a regular IP address conflict with our Cisco ValetPlus M20 router that causes one portable computer to not be able to access the internet and we reboot the router -  I am looking for a permanent solution to this problem - not the temporary solution of renewing the IP address as is recommended on most message boards that I've found online - why would the router/network have such a problem?  Does something need to be set?  Does the router need to be configured?  It seems that the router should be able to allocate IP addresses for all computers on the network - which include two portable computers, one desktop, and 2 ipads. But only one portable computer running windows 7 experiences the conflict, has the problem. Could it be software on that computer or malware causing the problem?
    Thanks,
    David

    dfine1971 wrote:
    I'm not sure what you're asking, we have internet access, but one computer loses its connection overnight and then we reboot the router and that solves the problem...
    Hello, dfine1971. One computer losing connection may be due to any of the following causes: wireless interference, intermittent wireless signal, or limits on the number of devices that are allowed to connect to the wireless network (router). If the computer is wired to the router, there's a possibility of an adapter problem. For wireless interference and intermittent signals, try changing the router wireless channel to either 1, 6, 9, or 11. Relocating the router should provide you a better signal coverage. If the IP address conflict error message still persists, set the wireless clients to automatic DHCP configuration or enable DHCP Reservation instead of using static IP.
    More power to the users!

  • "conflicts with the WAN IP address"

    I just picked up a used AirPort Extreme N (Gigabit Ethernet) to replace my current non-Apple router, which has worked satisfactorily but lacks the ability to share disks--something I need. Using my G5 running 10.4.11, I downloaded AirPort Utility 5.4.2 to set up the new (to me) device, and did a factory reset just to clear everything out. I placed the AirPort in the network exactly where the old one had been--with its WAN port connected to the line supplied by my ISP (see below) and its three other ethernet ports connected to various clients. Then I ran into a problem:
    Under the "Internet" icon of Airport Utility, I set it to Connect Using Ethernet, and Configure IPv4 using DHCP (My current router uses DHCP to provide IP addresss to both the wired and wireless devices on my network). The numbers below that are: IP address 192.168.1.12, subnet mask 255.255.255.0, and router address 192.168.1.1.
    The first field of the line labeled "DNS Server(s)" defaults to 192.168.1.1, while the second field is empty, as are the fields Domain Name and DHCP Client ID. I left Ethernet WAN port on "Automatic" and put "Connection Sharing" on "Share a Public IP address," since I believe its combination of DHCP and NAT offer the best security.
    The problem: When I click the "Update" button to confirm my settings, I get this message: "The DHCP range you have entered conflicts with the WAN IP address of your Apple wireless device."
    Although I am unclear as to why the Internet Connection pane of the AirPort Utility lists "IP address" and "Router address" as two separate numbers (aren't they referring to the same device, the AirPort itself? How can it have two IP addresses?), I figured that I could play it safe and change the starting number to 192.168.1.13 to avoid the conflicts with 192.168.1.12.
    But I still get the same error message when pressing "update." I tried changing the range to 192.168.1.50 - 192.168.1.60, and I still get the same error message. There seems to be no range that the utility will accept as non-conflicting with the "WAN IP address" of the Airport.
    My ISP did not provide a visible modem as others in the past have done. The internet connection they left me simply comes out of a box on the back of the house that is connected by fiber optics to (presumably) a fiber optic line out in the street. However, this "supply line" has always worked fine with my non-Apple router and--after disconnecting the AirPort that had temporarily taken its place--is working right now as I throw this question to the forum.
    Additional notes:
    * Under the NAT tab, the box "Enable NAT Port Mapping Protocol" is checked, as it was by default) while "Enable default host at" is unchecked and blank.
    * While I currently have wireless turned on in the AirPort, I haven't even tried wireless connectivity yet and want to make sure my wired connectivity is working first.
    Thanks for any assistance.

    The problem: When I click the "Update" button to confirm my settings, I get this message: "The DHCP range you have entered conflicts with the WAN IP address of your Apple wireless device."
    This error message typically indicates that your 802.11n AirPort Extreme Base Station (AEBSn) is receiving a Private (as opposed to a Public IP address) on its WAN port. That could be because your ISP does not provide any device (computer or router), that is directly connected to their "box," with a Public IP address.
    Your AEBSn is both a DHCP client (on the WAN-side) and a DHCP server (on the LAN-side). The Configure IPv4 is basically the on/off switch for the AEBSn's DHCP client. It's other option, PPPoE, would only be used if your ISP requires it.
    One option would be to reconfigure the AEBSn as a bridge. This would disable both the AEBSn's NAT & DHCP services.
    Although I am unclear as to why the Internet Connection pane of the AirPort Utility lists "IP address" and "Router address" as two separate numbers (aren't they referring to the same device, the AirPort itself? How can it have two IP addresses?
    The IP address information on (actually the TCP/IP pane) is showing you the AEBSn's WAN port settings. Settings that with Configure IPv4 set to Using DHCP would come from the DHCP server upstream of it. If this server was providing Public IP addresses then the values in both the IP Address & Router Address fields would not be in any of the three valid Private IP Address ranges (10.x, 172.x, or 192.x)
    Under the NAT tab, the box "Enable NAT Port Mapping Protocol" is checked, as it was by default) while "Enable default host at" is unchecked and blank.
    This setting would not have anything to do with the error message that you are getting. Instead, this option is used as an on/off switch for the NAT-PMP protocol. This protocol is similar to non-AirPorts' UPnP protocol.
    While I currently have wireless turned on in the AirPort, I haven't even tried wireless connectivity yet and want to make sure my wired connectivity is working first.
    Both wired and wireless clients will be impacted by this until resolved. I again, suggest that you try reconfiguring the AEBSn as a bridge. (ref: AirPort Utility > Select the AEBSn > Manual Setup > Internet > Internet Connection > Connection Sharing = Off (Bridge Mode))

  • My time capsule will allow only one machine to connect to the internet at a time. Connection sharing is "off" on the Airport Utility. When I try to share an IP address I get the message that "DHCP range that I entered conflicts with the WAN IP address" I

    Suddenly, my time capsule will not allow more than one computer to connect to the internet at a time. On the Airport Utility on the internet tab, Connection Sharing is "Off (Bridge Mode)" When I try to change it to sharing an IP address, I get two messages that the beginning and ending DHCP addresses that the DHCP addresses I've entered conflict with the WAN address of my Apple wireless device."
    Any ideas?
    Thanks

    I use a DSL to connect to the internet. The modem is a Westell C90-810030-06. Two things happened in connection with the fail. I upgraded the firmware in both my Time Capsule (connected to the DSL) and the Airport Extreme (connected to my printer--used to extend the network). I also upgraded my Colof Nook to the Android Faux Tablet version. I can't imagine that that is creating some sort of mismatch.
    I have now downgraded the firmware on the Time Capsule to 7.4.1 which is what I had before. Fortunately, I found the trick to downloading the older airport utility to find the older firmware. All the older versions disappeared from my computers.
    I still have the same problem. Wifi works fine. If a second device connects to the wifi, then it works fine, but the first no longer has a connection.
    And my Airport Extreme is not working at all. It cannot be seen by the computer. I tried resetting it. I'm going to connect it by ethernet and downgrade the firmware on it.
    I appreciate any help. This is so frustrating.

  • Trying to set up Directv GenieGO using Airport Extreme.  Getting error message: DHCP range entered conflicts with the WAN IP Address of your base station.  How do I resolve the conflict.

    Trying to configure an Airport Extreme manually.  After I enter the IP Address of the GenieGo along with the rest of information required I am getting the following error message when I click update:
    DHCP range entered conflicts with the WAN IP address of your base station. 
    How do I resolve the conflict? 

    You cannot use the same range on LAN and WAN if you are routing.. it must be different.. and you should not be routing at all.
    The AE should be in bridge mode. NO DHCP settings at all.

  • Address book conflicts with iChat

    Whenever my son adds a "buddy" in iChat, it seems to create a new card in our Address Book. This is really messing up our Address Book, with duplicate addresses and out-of-date info. Is there any way to prevent a new card from being added? That is, can AB and iChat work independently? Thanks!

    Set him up his own Mac User account on the computer and he can have his own Address Book to mess up
    3:12 PM Wednesday; December 20, 2006

  • How to get web application to use Tuscany without conflicting with SAP SDO

    Hi,
    We are attempting to run a web application on SAP NetWeaver CE 7.1 SP1 which uses Tuscany SDO.  As it now stands We must use Tuscany because the web application will not run with the SAP SDO implementation provided by Netweaver. To ensure that Tuscany is loaded with priority, we have packaged the Tuscany JAR files and their dependencies as a heavy resource, as described here:
    http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/60642a88-95fe-2b10-d387-a245d48fc257?overridelayout=true
    The final check showed that Tuscany was correctly deployed as a heavy resource and included the following JAR files:
    common-2.2.3.jar
    ecore-2.2.3.jar
    ecore-change-2.2.3.jar
    ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar
    tuscany-sdo-impl-1.1.1.jar
    tuscany-sdo-lib-1.1.1.jar
    tuscany-sdo-tools-1.1.1.jar
    xsd-2.2.3.jar
    We also verified that the web application using Tuscany has a hard reference to the Tuscany heavy resource.
    However, when we try to run the web application, the following error is logged:  java.lang.LinkageError: Class commonj/sdo/DataGraph violates loader constraints
    The issue is definitely due to some kind of classloading conflict with the SAP SDO library, as the application runs normally when SAP SDO is manually removed from the classpath. Doing this on a production system is unfortunately not an option, though.
    So the question is: how to get web application to use Tuscany without conflicting with SAP SDO?

    I took a look at the "printerReady" example.  Looks like I may be able to use the InetPing (...) function to ping through a range of IP addresses looking for a response.
    Any ideas on how to find the MAC address associated with the IP addresses that respond?
    We may have multiple units responding and the MAC address will allow the operator to determing which unit to connect to.
    I'll try the InetPing to see how it works,
    Kirk

  • Windows 8.1 Hyper-V : IP address conflict on Guest OS

    Hi ,
    I have just installed Windows 8.1 and I want to move away from VMWare Player  and use Hyper-V instead.
    I have nevertheless issues with it on the networking side.
    Before setting up my VM, I have:
    - converted my vmdk to a vhd.
    - created a virtual switch in Hyper-V Manager.
    After that, i created the VM using the vhd and the virtual switch created beforehand.
    Once I boot up the guest OS (Windows 7), I have no internet connectivity on the guest OS, and it says : windows has detected an IP address conflict
    Also when I run ipconfig in a command prompt on the guest, I can see an ip address which is the same as my host OS (192.168.1.5) but then I guess that my host system takes the IP back as if i run ipconfig again the IP address is gone. 
    So I guess that my host and guest OS fight for the same IP. Also the message "windows has detected an IP address conflict" appears on the Guest OS.
    Also at times, the guest OS receive a strange IP: 169.254.99.175 which I have no clue where it comes from.
    Does anyone has an idea on how to solve the issue?
    Also here is a screenshot of the configuration of the Virtual Switch :
    Thanks for any help,
    Francois

    Hi Dan,
    I guess that you use IP address reservation on your router (configuring your router so that DHCP always gives the same IP address for a particular MAC address).
    As both your virtual machines and host machine will appear on the network as having the same MAC address, they will both get assigned the same IP by the router.
    The solution is to turn off IP Address reservation. Another option is to assign a fixed IP instead of using DHCP.
    I now here have 3 VMs on my Windows 8 machine, some use fixed IP and some use DHCP and they all work fine. The important part is to make sure your router does not have settings to assign a particular IP for a particular MAC address.
    Good luck!
    Francois
    Thanks. Reservation is not configured in the router - I have the option of specifying a MAC address and assigning an IP, but the table is blank. I'm guessing it mayb defaults to it? It's a router from the local ISP.
    In the advanced option of the virtual adapter in Hyper VM, I selected a static MAC. For whatever reason, the VM now has it's own IP address, X.X.X.7. Host is X.X.X.3
    2 strange things though.
    1. I can only access the router config page (X.X.X.1) via the VM. On the host, each time I try to login, it kicks me out. It's a Cox branded Netgear router (from ISP). Once I shutdown the VM, I can access the router config page on the host.
    2. When looking at the list of connected clients in the router, it only shows the Machine name for the host - however, the corresponding IP address shown is that of the VM.
    Weird ...
    Anyway, not so concerned with having it work at home - it will be more so for at work.

Maybe you are looking for