Re: NETBEUI Problem after XP SP2 Upgrade

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Don Cohen (doncohen_at_lens-cap.alltel.net)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:56:35 -0500

Hi Chuck,

> <SNIP>
> Don,
>
> Using a NAT router will have minimal impact upon overall throughput. Any
> properly selected NAT router should be able to handle all of the bandwidth
> requirements of a typical private LAN. The bottleneck, if there is one,
> typically happens in the pipe between you and your ISP; having multiple IP
> addresses (at extra cost) does not give you a fatter pipe.
>
> ICQ, if it's like MSN and Yahoo Messenger (both of which I use), may
> unfortunately, lose functionality. If you're going to have multiple IM
clients
> behind the router, or the IM client you'll be using will be doing file
transfer,
> audio, or video (not just text conversations), you'll need a router with
UPnP
> capability.
>
> UPnP router capability allows a UPnP application, like MSN or Yahoo
Messenger
> (and hopefully ICQ) to control the router. This allows full functionality
of
> the IM program, such as file transfer, audio, video, and multiple clients.

I appreciate this added information about available options.

Regarding NAT or UPnP routers - are you talking about configuring a router
one of these ways, or does this mean there are physically different routers?
If so, do you have any specific recommendations?

> Whether the inconvenience of losing a minimal amount of bandwidth, or of
losing
> slight IM functionality, justifies your avoiding use of a router, is your
> decision. If you don't use a router, you use IP on your LAN, and become
> infected with the worm of the month, you may experience a lot more
inconvenience
> or functionality.
> Protect yourself, and the rest of the internet. Use a NAT router,
particularly
> if you're going to connect more than one computer to the internet.
Please.

Understood. I'm pretty conscientious about this, running ZoneAlarm on all
systems, NAV with timely updates, Windows Critical Updates, as well as
scanning with SpyBot and AdAware on a regular basis. So far I've
experienced no significant issues, but do realize the need for constant
vigilence!

Best regards, 

-- 
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net
[Remove the "lens cap" for email]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 56k dial up on laptop 802.11G ?
    ... >>>No NAT router is running FW software in the traditional sense. ... >> Linux firewall is not a firewall... ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: UPNP/SSDP
    ... otherwise it's just a glorified packet filter with a set of rules. ... neither a NAT nor a router are referred to as packet filters. ... a NAT router for broadband internet does not do this, ... router to route traffic b/w two or more private networks and the internet. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Whats the story with NETGEAR FVS328?
    ... It and the Windows O/S are reliable enough if you know how to configure them ... > reboot the unit. ... > that no one in my home as attempted to connect to this router via the ... then the NAT router is good enough for home usage. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: XP Home safe file sharing (newbie)
    ... >> Zone Alarm is an excellent internal layer of protection, ... >> You really, really, need an outer layer, ie a NAT router, protecting your ... >Router is NAT or NOT! ... The C45 IS a NAT router. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: Would a firewall prevent Sasser worm?
    ... your side of the router. ... (although one PC with a worm behind your NAT router can gut all the other ... If an ISP has a NAT router then all the ... presumably other ports could be blocked also. ...
    (comp.security.misc)