Re: Problem setting up a small network
From: wayne (notme_at_example.com)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: voteforBush_at_us.com: "Vote"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Vote for Kerry"
- In reply to: SlowJet: "Re: Problem setting up a small network"
- Next in thread: SlowJet: "Re: Problem setting up a small network"
- Reply: SlowJet: "Re: Problem setting up a small network"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:17:40 GMT
I guess one of the things you didn't consider it that the router will also
be a firewall and provide NAT and DHCP for him.
Along with that if he does have a hub and not a switch then he may have
problems with XP and Hubs it is a known problem not everyone has it
http://briansbuzz.com/w/030619/
"My son - who until recently was a sys admin in another city - visited last
week and downloaded and ran Ethereal, a free packet sniffer he recommends.
He discovered Win XP was re-sending packets repeatedly, as if collisions had
been detected - resulting in packet floods, packets arriving out of order,
and general chaos.
"But Ethereal reported no actual collisions! As a test, XP and Win2K
machines were removed from the network and connected to each other with a
crossover [cable]. Everything was then perfect. File transfers that used to
take 28 minutes (if they ever finished) now took 55 seconds.
"The evidence (especially the last test) pointed to a problem in the network
hub - but a problem that didn't exist prior to Win XP receiving the fatal
update. We rushed out and bought a switch to replace the hub. Bingo! Problem
solved in all directions for all nodes.
"As all nodes could surf the Net and ping each other at acceptable speeds
during the time the problem existed, I believe the hub had not developed any
defect. Its design simply didn't anticipate something Microsoft did to XP in
one of the free upgrades.
"The other big lesson is this: I had assumed there were no traffic-related
problems on the network because the Task Manager graph never showed the
network more than 1.5% busy while problem files were transferring. But after
the hub was changed to a switch, peak traffic fell to undetectable levels. I
just didn't realize 1.5% was high enough to be a problem!"
"SlowJet" <SlowJet@noTY2this.com> wrote in message
news:3Qghd.532$7W.44@trnddc08...
> It all depends on whom you are sharing with and whom is paying the bill.
> I would never use a router for my LAN other than a security wall between
> my Host and the NET. And if my host is off, no one had better being using
> the net.
>
> So, I guess the owner of computer's and ISP accounts need to think before
> impluse buying. ;)
>
>
> BUT DAD, Everyone else is doing it!!!!!!!!!!
>
> SJ
> "NobodyMan" <none@none.net> wrote in message
> news:aasao057sa1amf4qanppkkk68hq337kp3v@4ax.com...
>> Yes, the way the OP had the network setup could work, but recommending
>> a broadband router to replace the hub is the best bet. Otherwise the
>> OP MUST leave the machine providing ICS hosting on all the time for
>> the other machines to access the internet. ICS is also a clunky
>> interface. When it fails (and it often does) you have to reboot the
>> host to restore ICS to functioning mode. Internet Crap Sharing is a
>> very poor substitute for a broadband router.
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 22:37:36 GMT, "SlowJet" <SlowJet@noTY2this.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>jel183(uk) had the correct way. (A simple subnet on a computer router)
>>>ICS
>>>supplies the router via IP gateway 198.162.0.1 255.255.255.0
>>>
>>>Your way is making things to complex and the OP already has a hub so
>>>there
>>>is no need for router or wireless.
>>>Newr DSL modems can connect via NIC or USB.
>>>
>>>SJ
>>>"wayne" <notme@example.com> wrote in message
>>>news:QjQgd.25653$HA.22902@attbi_s01...
>>>> couple of things you need to use the Ethernet port on the DSL modem.
>>>> If
>>>> it does not have one contact your provider and get one. Then purchase a
>>>> wireless router with at least 4 ports. Plug the computers into that
>>>> get
>>>> your DSL working use the same workgroup name for all the computers and
>>>> the
>>>> same username/passwords and you are just about there read about file
>>>> and
>>>> printer sharing. You may want to purchase a router that has a print
>>>> server
>>>> built in to avoid having to have the computer turned on that the
>>>> printer
>>>> is connected to. Or if you need to purchase a printer HP 5850 is a
>>>> nice
>>>> printer with Ethernet and wireless printing built in to the printer for
>>>> 144.00 it is hard to beat.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> "Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:u5MjvZpvEHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Anguel Iordanov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to set up a small network without a domain at home but
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> really sure where to start from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the computers are running Windows XP Home edition. The 3
>>>>>> computers
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be connected with CAT 5 via a central hub.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main computer is connected on a DSL line. The USB modem is
>>>>>> plugged
>>>>>> directly into this computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is how can I allow the other 2 computers to Access the
>>>>>> internet
>>>>>> at the same time as me using this connection? I also would like to
>>>>>> share
>>>>>> some files and a printer. If you know any great articles with
>>>>>> step-by-step
>>>>>> instructions on how to set up this please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anguel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/
>>>>> http://www.wown.info/
>>>>> http://www.practicallynetworked.com/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
- Next message: voteforBush_at_us.com: "Vote"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Vote for Kerry"
- In reply to: SlowJet: "Re: Problem setting up a small network"
- Next in thread: SlowJet: "Re: Problem setting up a small network"
- Reply: SlowJet: "Re: Problem setting up a small network"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|