"bumtracks" <lost@disney.lan> wrote in news:WBsEe.1975$sc3.295@trnddc07:
> What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
> have at home is dial up 56k access ?
>
>
>
I would say get a dial-up NAT router that has wireless abilities. But
manufactures seem to be abonding this dial-up period. Maybe, you can find
one or a discontinued line for a all wired or wire/wireless router. If you
can find a dial-up wire router, you can plug a WAP G device into it and
have wireless. An outdate or discontinued dial-up wireless router my or may
have *G*.
You could also get two wireless NIC's and put one into a computer that has
the dial-up connection and use ICS with two NIC(s) in AD-HOC mode.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:36:38 GMT, "bumtracks" <lost@disney.lan> wrote:
>What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
>have at home is dial up 56k access ?
I'm glad you said simple and not cheap. Look for a "LAN Modem" or
similar device. That's a misnamed NAT router conglomerated with a 56K
dialup modem. Some examples are 3Com 3C886, 3C886A, and 3C888. I use
these as backup for when the DSL or T1 goes down (or someone forgot to
pay the bill). They can be found on eBay for about $50-$100.
There's also the Multitech Proxy Server and their Dialup Router: http://www.multitech.com/PRODUCTS/Fa...uteFinder_102/
I can't find anything on the Proxy Server as it's obsolete. There are
several models, one of which uses an external modem.
Where's also a collection of products made by WebRamp. The company is
long gone, but the really crappy products are still floating around
eBay. Avoid unless you're cheap, desperate, or have masochistic
tendencies.
To get wireless, you take either an access point (i.e. no router), or
a wireless router with the router section disabled and running as an
access point, and plug it into one of the LAN ports on the LAN modem.
In article <WBsEe.1975$sc3.295@trnddc07>, lost@disney.lan says...
> What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
> have at home is dial up 56k access ?
>
>
>
Something like this? http://www.jiwire.com/always-on-wiflyer-product-
review-1.htm
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:36:38 GMT, "bumtracks" <lost@disney.lan>
wrote:
>What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
>have at home is dial up 56k access ?
I think one of the apple airport acess points has a built in
modem. If you have another computer in the house that is
connected to a modem and a wireless access point, then you should
be able to connect via that computer with it running a nat or
proxy program.
David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Buy just about any AP. Connect it to your wired LAN. Done!
>
>What LAN?
The one he either has or is going to create.
>> (Whatever host on your LAN actually has the modem must also
>> be able to do IP forwarding, and obviously should already have
>> a firewall.)
>
>He didn't say he had another machine.
Then he simply needs to add one. Since any old desktop will
do, it wouldn't cost as much as the AP.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
> Then he simply needs to add one. Since any old desktop will
> do, it wouldn't cost as much as the AP.
Then he needs to add a legal OS and configure it and it's starting to
sound more expensive again and a load of hassle (don't go throwing in
Linux as a suggestion because he hasn't said whether he's a linux expert
and if he's not then configuring that could prove frustrating).
Reading between the lines, I think he wanted a no-hassle solution to run
a laptop wirelessly.
"David Taylor" <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4c979c470192eb989cd3@news.cable.ntlworl d.com...
> In article <WBsEe.1975$sc3.295@trnddc07>, lost@disney.lan says...
> > What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
> > have at home is dial up 56k access ?
> >
> >
> >
> Something like this? http://www.jiwire.com/always-on-wiflyer-product-
> review-1.htm
The other way is to use any serial type modem and connect that to a router
which uses the serial port as backup to the Ethernet WAN connection. In this
case you dont have broadband WAN so the unit will use the dial up modem.
Once you have a proper router the world is your oyster including adding
wireless
Try this one. http://www.usr-emea.com/products/p-w...bb-rout02&loc=
unkg
Remember though, all those little programs like MSN which continually
transmit data and so could run up your phone bill. Enable so timeout
controls
>"David Taylor" <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d4c979c470192eb989cd3@news.cable.ntlwor ld.com...
>> In article <WBsEe.1975$sc3.295@trnddc07>, lost@disney.lan says...
>> > What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
>> > have at home is dial up 56k access ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Something like this? http://www.jiwire.com/always-on-wiflyer-product-
>> review-1.htm
>
>The other way is to use any serial type modem and connect that to a router
>which uses the serial port as backup to the Ethernet WAN connection. In this
>case you dont have broadband WAN so the unit will use the dial up modem.
>Once you have a proper router the world is your oyster including adding
>wireless
>Try this one.
>http://www.usr-emea.com/products/p-w...bb-rout02&loc=
>unkg
>Remember though, all those little programs like MSN which continually
>transmit data and so could run up your phone bill. Enable so timeout
>controls
Put zone alarm on the laptop and stop that pesky calling home.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:01:25 +1000, Barry OGrady
<atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:36:38 GMT, "bumtracks" <lost@disney.lan> wrote:
>
>>What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
>>have at home is dial up 56k access ?
If you're gonna advocate adding a computah to do the job of a modem
router, then at least use software that's suitable for the purpose.
There are plenty of stand along Linux based router packages available.
I use Freesco for the purpose: http://www.freesco.org http://www.freescosoft.com/home/
Boots on a floppy or Compact Flash card. There are better packages
around, but this was the one I used first and like.
I've built 2 hot spots using Freesco as a router. The major advantage
is the ability to have multiple independent ethernet ports with
independent routeing rules for keeping multiple shared customers
seperate. In the bad old days, before we got DSL and cable modems in
the area, I had companies sharing a modem dialup or ISDN dialup using
Freesco routers. Most were built on 486DX2/66 with 16MB and booting
from a CF card.
Searching Google for "ics sucks", I get 240 hits. "ICS fails" adds
another 198 and "ics problem" adds 4450 hits. Not really a huge
number, but enough to indicate a trend.
The problem that bugs me most is that ICS drops oversized packets in
W2K. It seems to get it right in XP, but if you have 802.1q VLAN
packets running, you need to shrink the MTU a few bytes on every ICS
client workstation to get it to stop dropping packets. MTU discovery
would normally find and fix this automagically, but ICS apparently
doesn't support MTU discovery.
There are also some limitations as to what you can do with ICS in
terms of port forwarding and port triggering. ICS does not block
anything by default and really needs an additional firewall in front
of it to handle the port forwarding. I've had excessive entertainment
using ICS in conjunction with various firewall products (Kerio,
Norton, McAfee, etc). Most of these have special instructions for
making them work with ICS.
I've crashed ICS with a pair of gigabit ethernet cards running full
blast, but that's expecting a bit much. ICS is fine for a modem or
typical DSL. I've also found weird network problems (sorry, forgot
the details) when ICS is installed, but not being used.
It's not that ICS is defective or broken. It mostly works. It's that
there are so many better proxy, NAT, Linux, and hardware solutions
that work much better and easier than ICS.
If I have to use a PC for sharing a connection, I like to use: http://www.analogx.com/contents/down...work/proxy.htm
It too lacks features and requires a firewall to protect the system,
but it's free and it works.
Barry OGrady <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:02:15 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> >Which requires a second computer...
>>>
>>> Which is not a problem.
>>
>>Where in the specification of the question does it say that adding a
>>second computer isn't a problem? :)
>
>Where in the specification of the question does it say that adding a
>second computer is a problem? :)
You are absolutely right. The OP could probably find one that
someone is throwing in the trash that would be far more than is
needed for a firewall. And despite what David thinks, booting
up a Linux firewall is pretty darned easy (e.g., every Linksys
WRT54G does it in about 7 seconds).
Total cost: $0.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
news:874qajfbw2.fld@barrow.com:
> Barry OGrady <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:02:15 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> >Which requires a second computer...
>>>>
>>>> Which is not a problem.
>>>
>>>Where in the specification of the question does it say that adding a
>>>second computer isn't a problem? :)
>>
>>Where in the specification of the question does it say that adding a
>>second computer is a problem? :)
>
> You are absolutely right. The OP could probably find one that
> someone is throwing in the trash that would be far more than is
> needed for a firewall. And despite what David thinks, booting
> up a Linux firewall is pretty darned easy (e.g., every Linksys
> WRT54G does it in about 7 seconds).
>
> Total cost: $0.
>
No Linksys router has a FW. The NAT router has SPI maybe and some other FW
like features. And it can be used as part of a total FW solution as a
border device. But it's not an appliance that is running FW software, even
if it is running SPI.
> needed for a firewall. And despite what David thinks, booting
> up a Linux firewall is pretty darned easy (e.g., every Linksys
> WRT54G does it in about 7 seconds).
You're right but so far, i've never been able to take a machine out of
the bin with no OS (or wrong OS) on it and just plug it in and have it
come up as a configured Linux router. :)
I think we're getting way off the point here, it would have been
worthwhile asking the question first to see if the chap had other
machines and skill set/interest level to do what is required or just
point him to a little box to plug in, just like that amazing linux
powered WRT54G.
> No Linksys router has a FW. The NAT router has SPI maybe and some other FW
> like features. And it can be used as part of a total FW solution as a
> border device. But it's not an appliance that is running FW software, even
> if it is running SPI.
Just to play devils advocate here, depends if that little Linksys router
is running other software, after all it's just a linux box ;)
David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d4ef95e925b3a49989ce0@news.cable.ntlworl d.com:
>> No Linksys router has a FW. The NAT router has SPI maybe and some
>> other FW like features. And it can be used as part of a total FW
>> solution as a border device. But it's not an appliance that is
>> running FW software, even if it is running SPI.
>
> Just to play devils advocate here, depends if that little Linksys
> router is running other software, after all it's just a linux box ;)
>
> David.
>
If the little Linksys router can meet the specs below, then it's an
appliance running FW software. If it cannot meet the specs, then it's not
an appliance running FW software. And that's no matter what other
firmware is replacing the original firmware.
<snip>
A firewall examines all traffic routed between the two networks to see if
it meets certain criteria. If it does, it is routed between the networks,
otherwise it is stopped. A firewall filters both inbound and outbound
traffic. It can also manage public access to private networked resources
such as host applications. It can be used to log all attempts to enter
the private network and trigger alarms when hostile or unauthorized entry
is attempted. Firewalls can filter packets based on their source and
destination addresses and port numbers. This is known as address
filtering. Firewalls can also filter specific types of network traffic.
This is also known as protocol filtering because the decision to forward
or reject traffic is dependant upon the protocol used, for example HTTP,
ftp or telnet. Firewalls can also filter traffic by packet attribute or
state.
<snip>
The above is what I consider FW software whether or not it's running on
an appliance as a hardware solution on as a software solution running on
a gateway computer.
Let's knock the NAT out of the box. My low-end Watchguard FW appliance
has NAT too.
<snip>
Impostors
When discussing firewalls, packet screening methods, and how firewalls
function, there are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed.
Network Address Translation (NAT)
One technology that is commonly thought to act as a firewall solution is
Network Address Translation (NAT). NAT translates "internal" IP addresses
on one network to "external" IP addresses on another network. There are
three methods NAT uses to accomplish address translation.
Static NAT - maps a specific single address to another specific single
address.
Example:
10.0.0.1 -mapped to- 168.13.1.1
Pooled NAT- dynamically maps all specific single addresses to a pool or
range of external addresses.
Port Level NAT- dynamically maps all specific single internal addresses
to a specific single external address. The internal address is mapped or
identified by the specific external address in combination with a unique
port number.
By comparing the way NAT functions between two networks, and the way
packet screening methods function between two networks, you can see that
NAT does not adhere to the firewall definition. NAT does not control
access between the networks. Some may argue that NAT does control access
because you cannot "see" the internal network. NAT does this not by using
rules or filters, however, but through concealment. It hides the network
from outside users.
Duane Arnold <notme@notme.com> wrote:
>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
>news:874qajfbw2.fld@barrow.com:
>>
>> You are absolutely right. The OP could probably find one that
>> someone is throwing in the trash that would be far more than is
>> needed for a firewall. And despite what David thinks, booting
>> up a Linux firewall is pretty darned easy (e.g., every Linksys
>> WRT54G does it in about 7 seconds).
>>
>> Total cost: $0.
>>
>
>No Linksys router has a FW. The NAT router has SPI maybe and some other FW
>like features. And it can be used as part of a total FW solution as a
>border device. But it's not an appliance that is running FW software, even
>if it is running SPI.
The Linksys WRT54G series of wireless routers all have firewall
software.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> needed for a firewall. And despite what David thinks, booting
>> up a Linux firewall is pretty darned easy (e.g., every Linksys
>> WRT54G does it in about 7 seconds).
>
>You're right but so far, i've never been able to take a machine out of
>the bin with no OS (or wrong OS) on it and just plug it in and have it
>come up as a configured Linux router. :)
So? A machine with no OS won't come up as *any* kind of a router.
What's your point?
>I think we're getting way off the point here, it would have been
I don't think we are.
>worthwhile asking the question first to see if the chap had other
>machines and skill set/interest level to do what is required or just
>point him to a little box to plug in, just like that amazing linux
>powered WRT54G.
Well, we've given the OP a lot of ideas, but there has been no
further response. That is not uncommon.
However, the point of this type of thread is *not* just to query
the OP and get specifics. It is more beneficial as an archived
discussion that the next 100 people with the same question will
read and get an answer from without ever having to post a word.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
thanks
that's pretty much what I'm after - a simple solution so any little old
lady can configure and use her wifi laptop wirelessly at home. Downside
other than its a bit pricey is security is wep & mac, a 10mb network port,
and wifi-B only. Apparently allows 5 multiple connections and the basics
of file sharing, auto dials and hangs up modem when not in use.
Advertising sounds good. www.wiflyer.com about $135 at amazon
"David Taylor" <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4c979c470192eb989cd3@news.cable.ntlworl d.com...
> In article <WBsEe.1975$sc3.295@trnddc07>, lost@disney.lan says...
>> What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
>> have at home is dial up 56k access ?
>>
>>
>>
> Something like this? http://www.jiwire.com/always-on-wiflyer-product-
> review-1.htm
> So? A machine with no OS won't come up as *any* kind of a router.
> What's your point?
That's my point! A comment was made that a linux router (in this case a
WRT54G) just needs to be switched on but it has to be installed in the
first place.
> discussion that the next 100 people with the same question will
> read and get an answer from without ever having to post a word.
Doesn't happen, Google for them doesn't exist, it's easier to just come
along and ask again and again and again. MS even have a KB article on
it.
> other than its a bit pricey is security is wep & mac, a 10mb network port,
> and wifi-B only. Apparently allows 5 multiple connections and the basics
If you're going to dial up, trust me, 10Mbps network interface and
802.11b is NOT a limitation.
"bumtracks" <lost@disney.lan> wrote:
>What's a simple way to use your wireless laptop wirelessly when all you
>have at home is dial up 56k access ?
I'll second (or third, or fourth) the http://www.alwaysonwireless.com/wiflyer.html (I've bought two so far,
though the one on the weather station tower is getting replaced with a
Linksys WRT54G).
> Duane Arnold <notme@notme.com> wrote:
>>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
>>news:874qajfbw2.fld@barrow.com:
>>>
>>> You are absolutely right. The OP could probably find one that
>>> someone is throwing in the trash that would be far more than is
>>> needed for a firewall. And despite what David thinks, booting
>>> up a Linux firewall is pretty darned easy (e.g., every Linksys
>>> WRT54G does it in about 7 seconds).
>>>
>>> Total cost: $0.
>>>
>>
>>No Linksys router has a FW. The NAT router has SPI maybe and some other FW
>>like features. And it can be used as part of a total FW solution as a
>>border device. But it's not an appliance that is running FW software, even
>>if it is running SPI.
>
> The Linksys WRT54G series of wireless routers all have firewall
> software.
>
No NAT router is running FW software in the traditional sense. The
manufactures of the product can hype it all they want as being a solution
that's running FW software.
I suggest that you drop a line at comp.security.firewalls about a WRT54G or
any other NAT (no FW) router being used in the home to people that make a
living at it about this.
If the WRT54G can meet all the specs below, then it's an appliance running
FW software. If the WRT54G cannot meet the specs, then it's not an
appliance that's running FW software. I know that the low-end Watchguard
Firebox III SOHO 6 firewall appliance that I use meets those specs. I know
that the 54G or anyother Linksys NAT router or any NAT router for home
usage period is not running FW software. The NAT routers are good enough in
the protection as long as one is not doing high risk things like port
forwarding.
<snip>
What does a firewall do?
A firewall examines all traffic routed between the two networks to see if it
meets certain criteria. If it does, it is routed between the networks,
otherwise it is stopped. A firewall filters both inbound and outbound
traffic. It can also manage public access to private networked resources
such as host applications. It can be used to log all attempts to enter the
private network and trigger alarms when hostile or unauthorized entry is
attempted. Firewalls can filter packets based on their source and
destination addresses and port numbers. This is known as address filtering.
Firewalls can also filter specific types of network traffic. This is also
known as protocol filtering because the decision to forward or reject
traffic is dependant upon the protocol used, for example HTTP, ftp or
telnet. Firewalls can also filter traffic by packet attribute or state.
David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> So? A machine with no OS won't come up as *any* kind of a router.
>> What's your point?
>
>That's my point! A comment was made that a linux router (in this case a
>WRT54G) just needs to be switched on but it has to be installed in the
>first place.
*Everything* has to be installed in the first place. What else is
new. You *buy* the WRT54G with LInux pre-installed.
>> discussion that the next 100 people with the same question will
>> read and get an answer from without ever having to post a word.
>
>Doesn't happen, Google for them doesn't exist, it's easier to just come
>along and ask again and again and again. MS even have a KB article on
>it.
>
>:)
That is simply not true. For every one person who actually posts such
a question there are thousands who simply use google.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
> *Everything* has to be installed in the first place. What else is
> new. You *buy* the WRT54G with LInux pre-installed.
Quite, i'm not sure what the issue is here when you're agreeing with me.
I have yet to pick an old PC with a pre-configured linux
firewall/wireless router out of a bin though. There's always a first
time eh? :)
> That is simply not true. For every one person who actually posts such
> a question there are thousands who simply use google.
56k dial up on laptop 802.11G ? 
Linear Mode
