|
Posted by Dennis K. on January 12, 2007, 11:01 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
wrote:
>wrote:
>
>>I also vote for the router.
>
>I had a hard enough time finding a hub with a coax port (I have an older
>PC that I still use occasionally).
>
>Will it work with a hub?
To answer my own question, the section entitled "Individual Internet
connections" (see link below) seems to imply that I can get it to work
with a network hub. But I have to think that there is something that I
am missing here.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/hnw_nohost_computerw.mspx?mfr=true
--
Dennis K.
|
|
Posted by Robert Nichols on January 13, 2007, 9:43 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
:
:To answer my own question, the section entitled "Individual Internet
:connections" (see link below) seems to imply that I can get it to work
:with a network hub. But I have to think that there is something that I
:am missing here.
:
:http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/hnw_nohost_computerw.mspx?mfr=true
The configuration shown for "Individual Internet Connections" requires
that you purchase a separate public IP address for each computer** in
your network. You can probably get those from your ISP (I know you can
from Comcast, don't know about T-W/RoadRunner), but there will be an
additional monthly charge per IP address. Plus, you lose the automatic
protection that a NAT router provides against the probing that is part
and parcel of modern Internet life.
** OK OK, only those computers that need internet access, but I'm
guessing that's more than just one machine.
--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"
|
|
Posted by Dennis K. on January 13, 2007, 10:29 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>:
>:To answer my own question, the section entitled "Individual Internet
>:connections" (see link below) seems to imply that I can get it to work
>:with a network hub. But I have to think that there is something that I
>:am missing here.
>:
>:http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/hnw_nohost_computerw.mspx?mfr=true
>
>The configuration shown for "Individual Internet Connections" requires
>that you purchase a separate public IP address for each computer** in
>your network. You can probably get those from your ISP (I know you can
>from Comcast, don't know about T-W/RoadRunner), but there will be an
>additional monthly charge per IP address. Plus, you lose the automatic
>protection that a NAT router provides against the probing that is part
>and parcel of modern Internet life.
>
>** OK OK, only those computers that need internet access, but I'm
> guessing that's more than just one machine.
Yes, it will be more than one machine. I suspected it might have
something to do with what you described.
Does a NAT router eliminate the need for a firewall? Just point me to a
FAQ if this is getting OT.
Thanks,
--
Dennis K.
|
|
Posted by John Gray on January 13, 2007, 12:48 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:43:30 +0000 (UTC), Robert Nichols
>
>>:
>>:To answer my own question, the section entitled "Individual Internet
>>:connections" (see link below) seems to imply that I can get it to work
>>:with a network hub. But I have to think that there is something that I
>>:am missing here.
>>:
>>:http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs
/en-us/hnw_nohost_computerw.mspx?mfr=true
>>
>>The configuration shown for "Individual Internet Connections" requires
>>that you purchase a separate public IP address for each computer** in
>>your network. You can probably get those from your ISP (I know you can
>>from Comcast, don't know about T-W/RoadRunner), but there will be an
>>additional monthly charge per IP address. Plus, you lose the automatic
>>protection that a NAT router provides against the probing that is part
>>and parcel of modern Internet life.
>>
>>** OK OK, only those computers that need internet access, but I'm
>> guessing that's more than just one machine.
>
> Yes, it will be more than one machine. I suspected it might have
> something to do with what you described.
>
> Does a NAT router eliminate the need for a firewall? Just point me to a
> FAQ if this is getting OT.
>
> Thanks,
>
Well, I'm behind a NAT router. I do use a software firewall on each
machine, with the full realization that some malware can disable or bypass
them. However, for most programs, malware or not, it does ask for
permission to allow the program access or not. Also, if one of the other
computers on my LAN should be compromised, it will prevent access attempts
from them incoming to my uncompromised machines. File sharing is turned
off to everything but the multifunction printer on the network.
There are widely varying opinions of the merits of such setups, so expect
conflicting opinions. Decide for yourself.
|
|
Posted by Warren on January 13, 2007, 2:17 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Does a NAT router eliminate the need for a firewall?
The nature of NAT is such that someone on the outside can find the NAT box
(commonly a home broadband router in our context), but they can't find the
computers attached behind it.
Imagine finding an apartment building, and finding a door bell panel with
thousands of buttons. If you've been invited by a tenant, they've told you
which of the many buttons is theirs. And they can tell you what pattern to
tap-out so they'll answer. If you're just walking down the street looking
for people to bug, not only will it be unlikely that you'll find the right
button, it's even less likely that you'll know the right pattern to
tap-out to get an answer if you do find a button that attaches to
something. For all practical purposes, you're locked-out.
What NAT can't protect you from is attacks from within. If you allow a
trojan in (perhaps a drive-by download from a website you visited), it can
invite problems in when it phones home. In this case, the attack will know
which button to press, and what pattern to tap-out because it's being
invited in behind your back.
The most effective way of fighting these problems is a software firewall
that monitors programs attempting to make outbound connections. The
problem is that these programs usually will ask a user if they want to
allow a connection, and many of the people who are most prone to
inadvertently allow these trojans to enter in the first place are also
prone to rubber-stamp any outbound connection request with a "yes". (Or at
least they are once they discover that rubber-stamping with a "no" can
disconnect them from the Internet all together.)
But for someone who's alert, this level of protection, along with regular
scans for viruses, trojans, spyware and adware, along with the intrinsic
protection of NAT, will be sufficient.
However, if you happen to have information that needs to be protected for
National security issues, or have some other data that makes you a real
target of people other than script-kiddies, relying on a software firewall
running on the same machine that it's trying to protect is like hoping an
interior door in your house will protect the house. If they're already
into the machine, half their objective is met, and getting past a piece of
software is as easy as knowing how to remotely disable it.
There are external firewall boxes offering various levels of security well
beyond what NAT and a software firewall. But frankly, most home users
don't need to invest in these anymore than they need to invest in an
electric fence, a moat, or an armed guard to protect their homes. They're
just overkill for most people.
So to more directly answer your question, NAT, along with a software
firewall that monitors outbound connections, and regular scans of your
computer by anti-virus (etc.) programs is sufficient for most users, and a
true hardware firewall is not required. And yes, NAT is a very important
component of this strategy.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Shop for networking gear:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/linksys
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/netgear
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | lan setup help using cable modem as bridge | September 13, 2005, 5:21 pm |
| cisco 1721 to cable modem setup | August 12, 2006, 1:52 pm |
| Need help with network setup | June 2, 2005, 1:13 pm |
| How to setup Agent for Charter.net thru my work Bellsouth dsl isp? | October 31, 2005, 3:00 pm |
| Re: How to setup Agent for Charter.net thru my work Bellsouth dsl isp? | November 1, 2005, 7:24 am |
| Cable modem not working with TV cable plugged in | November 2, 2006, 1:34 am |
| Do I need a new cable modem? | February 15, 2005, 12:00 pm |
| what cable modem to ge | March 30, 2005, 7:15 am |
| cable modem | November 21, 2005, 10:55 pm |
| cable modem | May 14, 2006, 9:52 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map