|
Posted by DLR on January 20, 2006, 7:19 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>>Add the switch after the router if you need more ports.
>
> It is not particularly difficult to connect more than one computer to an
> internet source -- be it dialup, xdsl or cablemodem -- without a router.
> You put two NICs in one machine, which becomes the host. You connect one
> NIC to the modem and the other to your LAN switch. On the host you run
> IP-sharing software. Bob's your uncle.
>
Sure you can. But then your computer is the router. That's what
IP-sharing software is. A software package to allow your computer to be
a router.
As to if this is a good idea. With the monthly flaws showing up with MS
operating systems I personally feel it's a good idea to have the router
as a separate box. Then all unsolicited probes can be tossed and your
computer will never see them. In fact it's a good idea for all networks.
You will eliminate an entire class of problems.
|
 
| |
Posted by Warren on January 20, 2006, 2:54 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Henry wrote:
> It is not particularly difficult to connect more than one computer to an
> internet source -- be it dialup, xdsl or cablemodem -- without a router.
> You put two NICs in one machine, which becomes the host. You connect one
> NIC to the modem and the other to your LAN switch. On the host you run
> IP-sharing software.
There are some great disadvantages to this method compared to using a home
broadband router.
For example, if you use a router, most crap coming from the outside never
reaches your computer. Your OS can be swiss-cheese, security-wise, and it
doesn't matter too much because the OS is not exposed when you have an
external router.
When you're using IP sharing on a computer, whether it's the utility
included with your OS, or software from another vendor, it's still software
on top of your OS. Not only is your OS exposed, you're depending on software
running on that OS to protect you as well.
Essentially, using Internet connection sharing instead of a router is like
locking an interior door to protect your house, but leaving the front door
unlocked. That interior door barely slows down anyone intent on invading
your machine because you've already let them in. An external router using
NAT keeps most threats out of the house all together.
Also, Internet connection sharing software running on a computer uses some
of that computer's resources. How well your computer works can be dependant
on what's going on with your network, and how well your network works can be
dependant on what's going on with that one computer.
Also, with Internet connection sharing software that one computer always has
to be running, or no other machine has access to the Internet. Time to
reboot? Better let everyone else know the Internet connection is going down!
So between the inconvenience, and the security holes, it's a bad choice. You
still have to buy a second NIC, and you'll need a hub or a switch, and if
you're using third-party software instead of the swiss-cheese version
included with your OS, you have to buy the software. So you have an inferior
solution that costs as much, if not more, than the better solution of just
going out and getting a home broadband router that uses NAT.
Internet connection sharing software is simply a bad idea. It had it's place
for a short time back in the late '90s when broadband connections first
became available to home users, and a NAT router would cost an arm and a
leg, but once the Linksys BESFR41 broke the $100 mark in early 2000, there
really is no good reason for anyone to continue using Internet connection
sharing software instead of a router.
If you're using Internet connection sharing software you might as well just
hang-up a sign that says, "I expose my OS to the world: Attack me. I'm an
easy target."
--
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.
Compare and buy TaxCut and TurboTax Software:
http://www.holzemville.com/taxes/
|
|
Posted by Percival P. Cassidy on January 20, 2006, 2:55 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>> Add the switch after the router if you need more ports.
>
> It is not particularly difficult to connect more than one computer to an
> internet source -- be it dialup, xdsl or cablemodem -- without a router.
> You put two NICs in one machine, which becomes the host. You connect one
> NIC to the modem and the other to your LAN switch. On the host you run
> IP-sharing software. Bob's your uncle.
But I have always understood that the computer with the two NICs is
unprotected. If all you're using it for is as a router, I suppose that's
OK, but I'd rather just get a $50 (or less) "black box" router switch
that takes up less room and uses less power.
Perce
|
|
Posted by Henry on January 20, 2006, 3:07 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> On 01/20/06 04:23 am Henry wrote:
>
> >> Add the switch after the router if you need more ports.
> >
> > It is not particularly difficult to connect more than one computer to an
> > internet source -- be it dialup, xdsl or cablemodem -- without a router.
> > You put two NICs in one machine, which becomes the host. You connect one
> > NIC to the modem and the other to your LAN switch. On the host you run
> > IP-sharing software. Bob's your uncle.
>
> But I have always understood that the computer with the two NICs is
> unprotected.
Not so! See
http://www.sustworks.com/site/prod_ipnrx_overview.html
for how it can be done with firewall protection!
cheers,
Henry
|
|
Posted by DLR on January 20, 2006, 4:02 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>>On 01/20/06 04:23 am Henry wrote:
>>>>Add the switch after the router if you need more ports.
>>>
>>>It is not particularly difficult to connect more than one computer to an
>>>internet source -- be it dialup, xdsl or cablemodem -- without a router.
>>>You put two NICs in one machine, which becomes the host. You connect one
>>>NIC to the modem and the other to your LAN switch. On the host you run
>>>IP-sharing software. Bob's your uncle.
>>
>>But I have always understood that the computer with the two NICs is
>>unprotected.
>
>
> http://www.sustworks.com/site/prod_ipnrx_overview.html
> for how it can be done with firewall protection!
Yes it CAN be done. But that doesn't mean it SHOULD. I've used Peter's
software for years. I even setup 8 different sites using IPNetRouter.
Some time back before 2000. But these days not having a dedicated box
between your main computer and the outside internet is a BAD idea.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Can I connect switch port of Router to uplink on another switch to add more PC's | May 21, 2005, 9:55 pm |
| Router or Switch? | August 27, 2005, 10:36 am |
| Looking for cheap and best Router-switch?. | March 5, 2005, 11:30 am |
| Wireless Router To Hub/Switch | May 2, 2005, 6:43 am |
| Linksys EZXS16W Switch + BEFSR11 Cable/DSL Router Problems | November 21, 2006, 8:53 am |
| Switch stops working after five minutes - any switch I try. Please help. | October 12, 2006, 6:24 am |
| What is the difference between Hub and switch | February 8, 2005, 9:31 pm |
| Why was the hub faster than the switch? | December 4, 2005, 6:11 pm |
| Looking for low cost Ethernet split switch | June 14, 2007, 10:04 pm |
| Can I get an IAD which contains 4-port ethernet switch + modem (cable or adsl)? | March 22, 2005, 5:29 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map