Science Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Baron
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
 |
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3dc00$hgh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
similar to an internal network card ?
It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online
with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
straight forward.
|
Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going to
have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its Internet
feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are trying
to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles a
bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of sight
you can achieve between stations.
If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its cell
connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the two
points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
might be the lesser evil !
Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
issue !
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3j83v$bi9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
| Quote: |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3dc00$hgh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
similar to an internal network card ?
It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online
with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
straight forward.
Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going to
have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its Internet
feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are trying
to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles a
bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of sight
you can achieve between stations.
If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its cell
connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the two
points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
might be the lesser evil !
Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
issue !
|
Well, the second Verizon card is problematic, the fee approaches $70 per
month. The card is typically used in laptops, where the user is not always
able to stop by Starbucks to use the free Internet service they have.
My guy has two PCs in the same room, and two or three other machines in
another room. The distance between the machines is only 40-ish feet or less,
so a wireless connection scheme will work nicely. The two machines that
share the same room can be connected directly via a CAT5 cable, but then the
other machines can't be connected -- assuming the Verizon service will
tolerate networked connectivity. I can connect via CAT5 to the router, and
then do a mix of CAT5 connections and wireless connections among the other
machines. The key, it seems, is the ability of the Verizon card to tolerate
a network running off of it. I don't know the QOS limitation, but it can't
be very high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
On Jun 20, 8:52 pm, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
NAT, Network address translation is a simple router function.
certainly isn't.. no book or article would say so because it's false.
NAT is a function and Routing is a function . just like DHCP is a
function.
I would disagree with you. NAT more accurately NAPT is a routing
function and not strictly a function in its own right independent of
routing. The two go hand in hand.
They might put it all in the same box and throw a modem in there too,
and call it a Router, but that doesn't make DHCP a router function ,
I don't recall saying DHCP was a router function ! I did say :-
"The other side of the router hands out addresses to the machines as
they request them via DHCP."
it doesn't make a modem part of a router.
I agree it doesn't !
|
<snip>
OK, so regarding NAT (or perhaps calling it NAPT or PAT is more
accurate)
- routers n routing existed before PAT.
- The RFC that defines routing (RFC 1812) does not mention PAT
- Routers have the function of Routing , routing does not involve
looking at tcp ports like PAT
I would suspect that if a user on DSL, and you have a router-modem (A)
and a router(B) connected to it.
You can/should disable NAT on B. It will route fine.
The NAT function can be performed on one computer or appliance,
separately from the routing function.
And as an additional side point. I have heard that some things that
are marketted as firewalls might also do NAT, (but i'm sure they don't
do routing) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Joe J.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
I'm out in the country and had AT&T WildBlue satellite connection for a
while but the number of weather related outages was not acceptable. Not
only with bad weather here but also at times at the uplink point. They also
limited downloads based on speed and quantity. I switched to a Sprint
mobile broadband card that I plug into a Kyocera router. Off of that, I
have 3 PCs connected to the Net. 2 hard wired and one wireless. Been
running that for 6 months now without outages, problems etc. Access costs
me $59 per with unlimited time. Wish I would've know about this before I
had the darn dish installed on the roof. Great thing is when I travel, I
can just unplug the card and take it along with the laptop. No worries
about wifi hot spots etc. As long as Sprint is in the area, I have
Internet.
Joe
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Edb7k.128$cv5.67@trnddc01...
| Quote: |
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3j83v$bi9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3dc00$hgh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
similar to an internal network card ?
It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online
with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
straight forward.
Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going to
have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its Internet
feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are trying
to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles a
bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of sight
you can achieve between stations.
If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its cell
connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the two
points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
might be the lesser evil !
Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
issue !
Well, the second Verizon card is problematic, the fee approaches $70 per
month. The card is typically used in laptops, where the user is not always
able to stop by Starbucks to use the free Internet service they have.
My guy has two PCs in the same room, and two or three other machines in
another room. The distance between the machines is only 40-ish feet or
less, so a wireless connection scheme will work nicely. The two machines
that share the same room can be connected directly via a CAT5 cable, but
then the other machines can't be connected -- assuming the Verizon service
will tolerate networked connectivity. I can connect via CAT5 to the
router, and then do a mix of CAT5 connections and wireless connections
among the other machines. The key, it seems, is the ability of the Verizon
card to tolerate a network running off of it. I don't know the QOS
limitation, but it can't be very high.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3j83v$bi9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3dc00$hgh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that
its similar to an internal network card ?
It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets
online with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
straight forward.
Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going
to have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its
Internet
feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are
trying
to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles
a
bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of
sight you can achieve between stations.
If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its
cell connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the
two
points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
might be the lesser evil !
Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
issue !
Well, the second Verizon card is problematic, the fee approaches $70
per month. The card is typically used in laptops, where the user is
not always able to stop by Starbucks to use the free Internet service
they have.
My guy has two PCs in the same room, and two or three other machines
in another room. The distance between the machines is only 40-ish feet
or less, so a wireless connection scheme will work nicely. The two
machines that share the same room can be connected directly via a CAT5
cable, but then the other machines can't be connected -- assuming the
Verizon service will tolerate networked connectivity. I can connect
via CAT5 to the router, and then do a mix of CAT5 connections and
wireless connections among the other machines. The key, it seems, is
the ability of the Verizon card to tolerate a network running off of
it. I don't know the QOS limitation, but it can't be very high.
|
I wonder if that is a problem in the UK, being able to connect a network
to the cell network. Unfortunately I only know one person that has one
of these cell Internet devices. His is a USB dongle that he can plug
into any machine but as far as I am aware doesn't allow networking.
I read the post from Joe J with interest, because he comments that he
can plug his cell card into his Kyocera router. Now that would be the
perfect solution to your connectivity issues.
It would be interesting if Joe J could comment further about the type of
connection, ie, is it USB and does the Kyocera treat the port like an
ADSL or Cable one.
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Joe J.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
Snip.
| Quote: |
I read the post from Joe J with interest, because he comments that he
can plug his cell card into his Kyocera router. Now that would be the
perfect solution to your connectivity issues.
It would be interesting if Joe J could comment further about the type of
connection, ie, is it USB and does the Kyocera treat the port like an
ADSL or Cable one.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
|
I use this router:
http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/kr1-router/
I use a Pantech PX 500 card to plug in.
http://www.pantechusa.com/web/guest/px500
Hope that helps.
Joe J |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 20, 8:52Â pm, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:
jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
NAT, Network address translation is a simple router function.
certainly isn't.. no book or article would say so because it's
false. NAT is a function and Routing is a function . Â just like
DHCP is a function.
I would disagree with you. Â NAT more accurately NAPT is a routing
function and not strictly a function in its own right independent of
routing. Â The two go hand in hand.
They might put it all in the same box and throw a modem in there
too, and call it a Router, but that doesn't make DHCP a router
function ,
I don't recall saying DHCP was a router function ! I did say :-
"The other side of the router hands out addresses to the machines as
they request them via DHCP."
it doesn't make a modem part of a router.
I agree it doesn't !
snip
OK, so regarding NAT (or perhaps calling it NAPT or PAT is more
accurate)
- routers n routing existed before PAT.
- The RFC that defines routing (RFC 1812) does not mention PAT
- Routers have the function of Routing , routing does not involve
looking at tcp ports like PAT
|
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/router2.htm
The router !
It joins the two networks, passing information from one to the other
and, in some cases, performing translations of various protocols
between the two networks.
See RFC1631
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1631.html
| Quote: |
I would suspect that if a user on DSL, and you have a router-modem (A)
and a router(B) connected to it.
You can/should disable NAT on B. It will route fine.
|
That would depend upon what routing you require inside your network
| Quote: |
The NAT function can be performed on one computer or appliance,
|
True !
| Quote: |
separately from the routing function.
|
Its still a routing function !
| Quote: |
And as an additional side point. I have heard that some things that
are marketted as firewalls might also do NAT, (but i'm sure they don't
do routing)
|
You need to read up on the equipment that you want to use ! Some do and
some don't !
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
Joe J. wrote:
| Quote: |
Snip.
I read the post from Joe J with interest, because he comments that he
can plug his cell card into his Kyocera router. Now that would be
the perfect solution to your connectivity issues.
It would be interesting if Joe J could comment further about the type
of connection, ie, is it USB and does the Kyocera treat the port like
an ADSL or Cable one.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
I use this router:
http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/kr1-router/
I use a Pantech PX 500 card to plug in.
http://www.pantechusa.com/web/guest/px500
Hope that helps.
Joe J
|
Thanks Joe J,
That is useful information ! Pity about the low data rates. 2.4Mbs is
better than dialup any day.
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
On Jun 22, 11:49 am, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:52 pm, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:
jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
NAT, Network address translation is a simple router function.
certainly isn't.. no book or article would say so because it's
false. NAT is a function and Routing is a function . just like
DHCP is a function.
I would disagree with you. NAT more accurately NAPT is a routing
function and not strictly a function in its own right independent of
routing. The two go hand in hand.
They might put it all in the same box and throw a modem in there
too, and call it a Router, but that doesn't make DHCP a router
function ,
I don't recall saying DHCP was a router function ! I did say :-
"The other side of the router hands out addresses to the machines as
they request them via DHCP."
it doesn't make a modem part of a router.
I agree it doesn't !
snip
OK, so regarding NAT (or perhaps calling it NAPT or PAT is more
accurate)
- routers n routing existed before PAT.
- The RFC that defines routing (RFC 1812) does not mention PAT
- Routers have the function of Routing , routing does not involve
looking at tcp ports like PAT
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/router2.htm
The router !
It joins the two networks, passing information from one to the other
and, in some cases, performing translations of various protocols
between the two networks.
|
If the definition of router were joining 2 networks and passing
information from one to another, then almost Any network device, is a
router. A cable, a network firewall, a switch/bridge. An application
layer web proxy.
are they all routers according to you?
the definition you provided, based on that article, was never meant to
be a definition, (if it was then it's obviousy a poor one). It was a
weak statement about what routers do. So weak that it covers what many
network devices do.
So by virtue of tha weak statement, that article "mentions" all those
things. Other than that. That article does not mention NAT or PAT..
You won't find any article saying that NAT, or that NAPT/PAT , are any
part of routing.
a network layer proxy server e..g one that just passes a packet on
somewhere, or translates it - converting one network address to
another, perhaps changing network protocol too Could even do NAT I
suppose, but it's not a router. It has no routing table.. Or, to use
terminology of the previous RFC(the one for gateways). It's not a
gateway, it has no routing database.
RFC 1631 - The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
"
3.2 Routing Across NAT
The router running NAT
"
Think about this.
Do you really think you have a strong argument there?
I said the RFC for Routers does not mention NAT
That is proof that the NAT has nothing to do with routing.
If it DID mention NAT, then that would not prove it, one would have to
see what it says about it.
Now.. It didn't mention NAT.
But you have posted the RFC for NAT, saying it mentions routers.
And better, it even refers to a router running NAT !
NAT would be working in tandem with routers. And in so doing, since
NAT is so simple, it would be common for the box known as a router to
do NAT too.
Infact, RFCs are written after the event, in order to reflect
practical realities. Which are that many router boxes post NAT(I mean,
developed after NAT), (particularly ones used by the public), do NAT
too.
I haven't read much about DHCP.. But I know what it does... and I
notice you claimed - correctly - that it is not part of routing ,
even though it is part of many routers used by the public today. Of
course, the routing rfc does not mention it, because it's nothing to
do with routing. But the DHCP RFC has this statement..
Which seems to me to be similar logic to the NAT document..
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2131.txt
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
"
"BOOTP relay agent"
A BOOTP relay agent or relay agent is an Internet host or router
that passes DHCP messages between DHCP clients and DHCP servers.
DHCP is designed to use the same relay agent behavior as
specified
in the BOOTP protocol specification.
"
So there you are, it refers to a router passing DHCP messages -
presumably not all routers do it. And it gives
Yet you claim - correctly - that DHCP has nothing to do with routing
So just like the statement in the RFC about NAT. The same logic
applies. When it refers to router running NAT, that does not mean that
it is a router function..
Router functionality is described in the router RFC.. And Routers
existed before DHCP, just as they existed before NAT.
RFCs are non exhaustive and describe events after the fact.. And that
is a nuisance for programmers. And their terminology is sometimes not
consistent between one RFC and another.. And only claims to be true
for that RFC. But we are not facing that problem here!
This is merely the logic of your argument that is at fault..
<snip>
| Quote: |
The NAT function can be performed on one computer or appliance,
True !
separately from the routing function.
Its still a routing function
|
i'm waiting to see how you can maintain that after this post.. Infact
regarding the 3 points I made originally..
That the router rfc doesn't mention NAT. That routers existed before
NAT. and no article says that NAT/PAT is a router function .
You made an attempt at arguing that an article did. Though if it did
then so did everything else that you agree is not . So that didn't
work.
And you tried to show that the NAT RFC mentions routing. Or talk about
a router doing it.. But that logic, because other RFCs for devices
that you agree do not routing functions, use the same phraseology.
You also said it was a -basic- router function.
Howcome then a router sans modem do routing without NAT? (i haven't
used one much, but I suspect this is the case). you haven't disagreed
or corrected me there if that was wrong. If that is indeed the case,
then it doesn't help your argument that it's a basic router
function...
Of course, neither does the fact that Routers pre-existed NAT.
<snip> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
On Jun 22, 7:31 pm, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
James I see no point in continuing this thread ! I have not the
slightest interest in simply arguing ! You jumped in to make a
correction that really had no real value in the context of the original
post. By pretending that you wanted to be informed just to create an
argument is a waste of my time.
This thread is now closed. Period.
|
Maybe you get a kick out of thinking of yourself as a "teacher" who
people ask for help, and then you help them. But anybody informs you,
you don't appreciate it, you get upset.
Yes, I asked you some questions, in the process of explaining far more
things to you too.. You don't like it? Then you have a problem with a
2 way discussion.
I don't know who you think you are declaring a thread to be closed. It
doesn't work like that deary. You want to quit responding, then quit
responding. That's not "closing a thread". It's not a web forum run
by a totalitarian pseudo-baron with delusions of power. You can always
start up your own one of those! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question |
|
|
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
James I see no point in continuing this thread ! I have not the
slightest interest in simply arguing ! You jumped in to make a
correction that really had no real value in the context of the original
post. By pretending that you wanted to be informed just to create an
argument is a waste of my time.
This thread is now closed. Period.
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Network Question -- UPDATE |
|
|
<top post>
The card that accesses the Verizon system is a USB dongle, and the Windows
Network Manager has no idea that the machine on the 'net because it is
looking for activity from the NIC, not the USB.
I will be connecting a cross-over cable so files and the printers can be
shared among the two machines, but I have low confidence that the USB device
that provides the Internet access will be accessible from the other machine.
I created a Workgroup, but the architecture of the system is not correct,
and the two machines do not talk to one another -- files are not visible,
and neither machine shows up on the other machine's Network Neighborhood.
</top post>
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BqW5k.77253$bs3.32011@trnddc07...
| Quote: |
Two computers, maybe more if this works.
A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed service in
the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed internet, so the
owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The card has a montly fee of
60-ish dollars.
He has a wireless router.
Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router via
an ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another machine, then
get on the 'net from the second machine through the router and back to the
first machine with the Verizon card in it?
It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all. Frankly, I
know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be expensive so
one needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this business owner
would enjoy getting more work done, but right now a person has to leave a
work station to go to another one to perform tasks that the boss would
like to be done from wherever the person is sitting.
The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why not
connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a cheaper
solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis a vis the
traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.
Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine B
which does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine A to
the goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B to one of
four goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless adaptor to Machine
B and connect to the router that way. This will physically establish the
network via hardware, where my plan falls apart is on the software side.
This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have a far
different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service) that has a
down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a CAT5 cable in
the converter that feeds the goes-into port on my router, then I have
another CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that feeds my computer in the
garage. I have several other computers that wirelessly connect to the
router, and in turn to the fiber system.
Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere in
the system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which means I
don't understand all that I know.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Network Question -- UPDATE |
|
|
Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:
| Quote: |
The card that accesses the Verizon system is a USB dongle, and the
Windows Network Manager has no idea that the machine on the 'net
because it is looking for activity from the NIC, not the USB.
|
You need to get the USB device working properly first. I have found
that various forms of malware can stop these things from working as
well so you need to check that also.
| Quote: |
I will be connecting a cross-over cable so files and the printers can
be shared among the two machines, but I have low confidence that the
USB device that provides the Internet access will be accessible from
the other machine.
|
Yes you will need that for machine to machine Ethernet connections.
| Quote: |
I created a Workgroup, but the architecture of the system is not
correct, and the two machines do not talk to one another -- files are
not visible, and neither machine shows up on the other machine's
Network Neighborhood.
|
The easiest way is to use the "Files & Settings Transfer Wizard" !
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Re: Network Question -- UPDATE |
|
|
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3r3gd$8bo$1@registered.motzarella.org...
| Quote: |
Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:
The card that accesses the Verizon system is a USB dongle, and the
Windows Network Manager has no idea that the machine on the 'net
because it is looking for activity from the NIC, not the USB.
You need to get the USB device working properly first. I have found
that various forms of malware can stop these things from working as
well so you need to check that also.
|
The USB device works fine. The host that it is installed in reports IP
config problems -- another machine with the same address, or some such
thing. I was able to establish a connection between two machines, but the
host machine would not share the USB device, and the device reported that
there were two different Internet connections with the same IP address. I
resolved the addressing issue by disabling the second machine's network
connection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: Re: Network Question -- UPDATE |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g3r3gd$8bo$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:
The card that accesses the Verizon system is a USB dongle, and the
Windows Network Manager has no idea that the machine on the 'net
because it is looking for activity from the NIC, not the USB.
You need to get the USB device working properly first. I have found
that various forms of malware can stop these things from working as
well so you need to check that also.
The USB device works fine. The host that it is installed in reports IP
config problems -- another machine with the same address, or some such
thing. I was able to establish a connection between two machines, but
the host machine would not share the USB device, and the device
reported that there were two different Internet connections with the
same IP address. I resolved the addressing issue by disabling the
second machine's network connection.
|
Mmm. I must admit I'm not surprised by that. The USB device does not
have DHCP so all machines on the network must have different fixed IP's
The machine with the USB device will probably need to do routeing. The
gateway address will be that of the USB device.
Just getting both machines to talk to each other via Ethernet is a
start.
--
Best Regards:
Baron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
102 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
