--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Sends packets various directions based on their IP address
> 2) Access Points
Provides access to a LAN (mostly with wireless)
> 3) Bridges
Connect two networks through a different medium at level 2 (Ethernet, for
example)
> 4) Switches
Nearly like a router, but works at level 2 and greatly lowers the traffic
any one station on the network sees. It also improves network utilization
by reducing collisions.
> Thanks,
Google is your friend.
You're welcome.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."
Drills grooves and finishes edges on wood furniture and counter tops.
>2) Access Points
Useful for emergency escapes and maintenance in vehicles, trains, and
sewers.
>3) Bridges
For crossing over rivers, valleys, and roadways.
>4) Switches
Turns the lights on and off.
>Thanks,
You're welcome. If you have problems using any of the internet search
tools or encyclopedia reference guides, please ask for help. If you
need wireless basics, start with the wireless tutorials at: http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/
AJM wrote:
> 1) Router
Routes data from one network to another. The most common example is
routing data from the Internet to your local home network. A wireless
router consists of a router, a wireless access point, and usually a
switch. A wired router may or may not have a built in switch.
> 2) Access Points
A wireless access point could also be called a wireless hub. It
connects wireless devices to a given network. You would typically
connect an Access Point to a switch or hub (or a switch located on a
router).
> 3) Bridges
A device that connects two parts of the same network via an alternate
method. A wireless bridge connects devices on a local network via a
wireless connection.
> 4) Switches
Routes data between devices on a single network. For a local area
network, all devices on the network would communicate through the
switch. Any access outside the network (like accessing the internet)
would require a router to route data to the other network.
>
> Thanks,
A simple diagram of these devices in action (I hope it is readable).
= is wire
~ is wireless
= computer 1
Internet = router = switch = access point ~ wireless bridge = xbox 1
= computer 2
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:45:17 -0700, Bryant Smith
<bryantthesmith@lycos.com> wrote in
<ekkjq1$4nv$1@az33news01.freescale.net>:
>AJM wrote:
>> 2) Access Points
>A wireless access point could also be called a wireless hub. It
>connects wireless devices to a given network. ...
Bad analogy (IMnsHO at least) -- hubs can connect to other hubs, but
access points cannot connect to other access points.
>> 3) Bridges
>A device that connects two parts of the same network via an alternate
>method. ...
Bridges can actually bridge between two different networks.
>> 4) Switches
>Routes data between devices on a single network. ...
Switching is not routing. A switch differs from a hub in that traffic
is directed to the single destination, instead of being broadcast to all
destinations.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:45:17 -0700, Bryant Smith
> <bryantthesmith@lycos.com> wrote in
> <ekkjq1$4nv$1@az33news01.freescale.net>:
>
>> AJM wrote:
>>> 2) Access Points
>> A wireless access point could also be called a wireless hub. It
>> connects wireless devices to a given network. ...
>
> Bad analogy (IMnsHO at least) -- hubs can connect to other hubs, but
> access points cannot connect to other access points.
True - I was trying to be simplistic rather than nit pick details.
Although, access points with WDS can connect to each other...
>
>>> 3) Bridges
>> A device that connects two parts of the same network via an alternate
>> method. ...
>
> Bridges can actually bridge between two different networks.
True.
>
>>> 4) Switches
>> Routes data between devices on a single network. ...
>
> Switching is not routing. A switch differs from a hub in that traffic
> is directed to the single destination, instead of being broadcast to all
> destinations.
>
You say it directs traffic I say it routes traffic. The two verbs can
mean very closely the same thing. The actual switch hardware does in a
way "route" traffic by sending the packets to their proper destination
in much then same way a router "directs" traffic to its proper
destination. It is just done at a different abstraction layer. Both
devices send traffic to a specific place as opposed to a hub that sends
all traffic everywhere.
Anyway, I'm not much for arguing over little details. The original
poster looked like he just wanted a simple explanation so that's what I
gave.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:44:35 -0700, Bryant Smith
<bryantthesmith@lycos.com> wrote in
<ekkua7$7q1$1@az33news01.freescale.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:45:17 -0700, Bryant Smith
>> <bryantthesmith@lycos.com> wrote in
>> <ekkjq1$4nv$1@az33news01.freescale.net>:
>>
>>> AJM wrote:
>>>> 2) Access Points
>>> A wireless access point could also be called a wireless hub. It
>>> connects wireless devices to a given network. ...
>>
>> Bad analogy (IMnsHO at least) -- hubs can connect to other hubs, but
>> access points cannot connect to other access points.
>
>True - I was trying to be simplistic rather than nit pick details.
That's not a nit pick -- that's a fundamental difference.
>Although, access points with WDS can connect to each other...
But not as clients.
>>>> 4) Switches
>>> Routes data between devices on a single network. ...
>>
>> Switching is not routing. A switch differs from a hub in that traffic
>> is directed to the single destination, instead of being broadcast to all
>> destinations.
>
>You say it directs traffic I say it routes traffic. The two verbs can
>mean very closely the same thing.
Not in technical terms -- they are fundamentally different, and a misuse
of the terms.
>Anyway, I'm not much for arguing over little details. The original
>poster looked like he just wanted a simple explanation so that's what I
>gave.
No offense intended, but inaccurate information can do more harm than
good.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Bryant Smith <bryantthesmith@lycos.com> wrote in news:ekkua7$7q1$1
@az33news01.freescale.net:
>>>> 4) Switches
>>> Routes data between devices on a single network. ...
>>
>> Switching is not routing. A switch differs from a hub in that traffic
>> is directed to the single destination, instead of being broadcast to
all
>> destinations.
>>
>
> You say it directs traffic I say it routes traffic. The two verbs can
> mean very closely the same thing. The actual switch hardware does in a
> way "route" traffic by sending the packets to their proper destination
> in much then same way a router "directs" traffic to its proper
> destination. It is just done at a different abstraction layer. Both
> devices send traffic to a specific place as opposed to a hub that sends
> all traffic everywhere.
>
> Anyway, I'm not much for arguing over little details. The original
> poster looked like he just wanted a simple explanation so that's what I
> gave.
>
As the saying goes.......'it's all in the details.'
The typical LinkSys/D-Link/Netgear Cable/DSL router is not really a
router either. It is a NAT device.
It's main function is not to 'route' packets anywhere, it is to translate
packets from one or more private IP addresses on a LAN to make the
destination look like the internet (or WAN) IP of the NAT-Device itself,
so other hosts on the internet can get data back to the PC with the
private IP.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:17:46 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988AB04BD594Fthisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>As the saying goes.......'it's all in the details.'
>
>The typical LinkSys/D-Link/Netgear Cable/DSL router is not really a
>router either. It is a NAT device.
>
>It's main function is not to 'route' packets anywhere, it is to translate
>packets from one or more private IP addresses on a LAN to make the
>destination look like the internet (or WAN) IP of the NAT-Device itself,
>so other hosts on the internet can get data back to the PC with the
>private IP.
Even though it's also a NAT/PAT device, it _is_ still a router
nonetheless.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:7p1sm2h474c5qtvl9in8ivvr1apr4od4l8@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:17:46 +0100 (CET), DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
> <Xns988AB04BD594Fthisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>
>>As the saying goes.......'it's all in the details.'
>>
>>The typical LinkSys/D-Link/Netgear Cable/DSL router is not really a
>>router either. It is a NAT device.
>>
>>It's main function is not to 'route' packets anywhere, it is to
>>translate packets from one or more private IP addresses on a LAN to
>>make the destination look like the internet (or WAN) IP of the
>>NAT-Device itself, so other hosts on the internet can get data back to
>>the PC with the private IP.
>
> Even though it's also a NAT/PAT device, it _is_ still a router
> nonetheless.
>
It is, but in the broadest sense of the word.
But when I'm used to working on Cisco and Cabletron/Enterasys
Routers......
I guess there's a question I've never had answered, that might make it
seems to be more of a router. Possibly you can answer it......
You have:
Internet <--> a NAT router <--> PC <--> LAN of PC's.
Rtr = 192.168.1.1
So above, the PC has 2 NICs, and set to route packets.
Rtr side = 192.168.1.2
LAN of PC's side = 192.168.100.2
The LAN of PC's each have a 192.168.100.x IP with a gateway set of
192.168.100.2.
So an internet bound packet from .100.10 will be sent to the PC as it's
gateway. The PC's gateway is the rtr, so the packet will be sent to the
rtr.
What will the router do with it ? It's source is from a different subnet
than the router eth is. Will it NAT this packet and send it out on the
internet ?
The rtr firmware also needs to offer a place to enter static routes also,
to be able to get back to the .100.x network thru the PC. Not all do.
Mine does not, I know some older Linksys rtr's could hold static routes
like that. There are others I'm sure.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:42:49 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988AB48AD8D8Athisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:7p1sm2h474c5qtvl9in8ivvr1apr4od4l8@4ax.com :
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:17:46 +0100 (CET), DanS
>> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
>> <Xns988AB04BD594Fthisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>>
>>>As the saying goes.......'it's all in the details.'
>>>
>>>The typical LinkSys/D-Link/Netgear Cable/DSL router is not really a
>>>router either. It is a NAT device.
>>>
>>>It's main function is not to 'route' packets anywhere, it is to
>>>translate packets from one or more private IP addresses on a LAN to
>>>make the destination look like the internet (or WAN) IP of the
>>>NAT-Device itself, so other hosts on the internet can get data back to
>>>the PC with the private IP.
>>
>> Even though it's also a NAT/PAT device, it _is_ still a router
>> nonetheless.
>
>It is, but in the broadest sense of the word.
It is, in the true sense of the word (router). RFC 1009:
Router A router is a switch that receives data transmission
units from input interfaces and, depending on the
addresses in those units, routes them to the
appropriate output interfaces. ...
For example, given a local network 192.168.0.0/16, and a packet
addressed to 66.102.7.104, a low-end consumer router knows to "route"
that packet to its WAN port, sending it to the gateway on that port.
Simple, yes, but routing nonetheless.
>But when I'm used to working on Cisco and Cabletron/Enterasys
>Routers......
Difference of degree, not kind.
>I guess there's a question I've never had answered, that might make it
>seems to be more of a router. Possibly you can answer it......
>
>You have:
>
>Internet <--> a NAT router <--> PC <--> LAN of PC's.
Why have a PC between the NAT router and the LAN of PC's?
>Rtr = 192.168.1.1
>
>So above, the PC has 2 NICs, and set to route packets.
ICS (Double NAT)? Real routing? Or bridging?
I'm going to assume ICS (Double NAT).
>Rtr side = 192.168.1.2
>LAN of PC's side = 192.168.100.2
>
>The LAN of PC's each have a 192.168.100.x IP with a gateway set of
>192.168.100.2.
>
>So an internet bound packet from .100.10 will be sent to the PC as it's
>gateway. The PC's gateway is the rtr, so the packet will be sent to the
>rtr.
>
>What will the router do with it ?
Route it.
>It's source is from a different subnet
>than the router eth is.
Depending on how the PC is configured, it's probably coming from the PC.
Double NAT.
>Will it NAT this packet and send it out on the
>internet ?
Yes.
>The rtr firmware also needs to offer a place to enter static routes also,
>to be able to get back to the .100.x network thru the PC.
No, it sends it back to PC as the origination point.
>Not all do.
>Mine does not, I know some older Linksys rtr's could hold static routes
>like that. There are others I'm sure.
No static route is needed.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:g15sm2tkkpjltmpos3ljaifkn9o70j4p6m@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:42:49 +0100 (CET), DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
> <Xns988AB48AD8D8Athisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>
>
> For example, given a local network 192.168.0.0/16, and a packet
> addressed to 66.102.7.104, a low-end consumer router knows to "route"
> that packet to its WAN port, sending it to the gateway on that port.
> Simple, yes, but routing nonetheless.
>
>>But when I'm used to working on Cisco and Cabletron/Enterasys
>>Routers......
>
> Difference of degree, not kind.
>
Agreed.
>>I guess there's a question I've never had answered, that might make it
>>seems to be more of a router. Possibly you can answer it......
>>
>>You have:
>>
>>Internet <--> a NAT router <--> PC <--> LAN of PC's.
>
> Why have a PC between the NAT router and the LAN of PC's?
Why not ? People here ask about all kinds of setups.
>
>>Rtr = 192.168.1.1
>>
>>So above, the PC has 2 NICs, and set to route packets.
>
> ICS (Double NAT)? Real routing? Or bridging?
> I'm going to assume ICS (Double NAT).
No ICS. Or other double-NATing.
<SNIP>
>
>>The rtr firmware also needs to offer a place to enter static routes
>>also, to be able to get back to the .100.x network thru the PC.
>
> No, it sends it back to PC as the origination point.
>
>>Not all do.
>>Mine does not, I know some older Linksys rtr's could hold static
>>routes like that. There are others I'm sure.
>
> No static route is needed.
>
But the router is not connected to the 100.x network, so it doesn't have
a way back, I would think it needs a static route pointing to the PC.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:10:55 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988AC37A31F17thisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:g15sm2tkkpjltmpos3ljaifkn9o70j4p6m@4ax.com :
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:42:49 +0100 (CET), DanS
>> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
>> <Xns988AB48AD8D8Athisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>>I guess there's a question I've never had answered, that might make it
>>>seems to be more of a router. Possibly you can answer it......
>>>
>>>You have:
>>>
>>>Internet <--> a NAT router <--> PC <--> LAN of PC's.
>>
>> Why have a PC between the NAT router and the LAN of PC's?
>
>Why not ?
Because it doesn't make sense.
>People here ask about all kinds of setups.
True. All too often unrelated even to wireless.
>>>Rtr = 192.168.1.1
>>>
>>>So above, the PC has 2 NICs, and set to route packets.
>>
>> ICS (Double NAT)? Real routing? Or bridging?
>> I'm going to assume ICS (Double NAT).
>
>No ICS. Or other double-NATing.
Then what?
>>>The rtr firmware also needs to offer a place to enter static routes
>>>also, to be able to get back to the .100.x network thru the PC.
>>
>> No, it sends it back to PC as the origination point.
>>
>>>Not all do.
>>>Mine does not, I know some older Linksys rtr's could hold static
>>>routes like that. There are others I'm sure.
>>
>> No static route is needed.
>
>But the router is not connected to the 100.x network, so it doesn't have
>a way back, I would think it needs a static route pointing to the PC.
Depends on what the PC is doing, which is still a secret.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:iq9sm2dnuvt782sftgk7oci27afaou7207@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> No static route is needed.
>>
>>But the router is not connected to the 100.x network, so it doesn't have
>>a way back, I would think it needs a static route pointing to the PC.
>
> Depends on what the PC is doing, which is still a secret.
>
No, not a secret, I already said it had IPRouting enabled.....
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:27:33 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988ADAA301B45thisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:iq9sm2dnuvt782sftgk7oci27afaou7207@4ax.com :
>
>>>> No static route is needed.
>>>
>>>But the router is not connected to the 100.x network, so it doesn't have
>>>a way back, I would think it needs a static route pointing to the PC.
>>
>> Depends on what the PC is doing, which is still a secret.
>
>No, not a secret, I already said it had IPRouting enabled.....
What you actually said was "set to route packets", which is pretty vague
since it could have meant any of a number of different things, including
ICS. You ducked my questions, leaving it a secret.
I think you'll find this more helpful with regard to how packets get
back through the Windows router:
<http://www.petri.co.il/configuring_routing_in_w2k_pro_xp_pro.htm>
In other words, you would need to configure the Windows router as a
gateway in the hardware router.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:vahsm2lv7katdd3j1iemb3eqs568af35e9@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
>>
>>No, not a secret, I already said it had IPRouting enabled.....
>
> What you actually said was "set to route packets", which is pretty
> vague since it could have meant any of a number of different things,
> including ICS. You ducked my questions, leaving it a secret.
>
>>http://www.windowsnetworking.com/art.../w2kprout.html
>
> I think you'll find this more helpful with regard to how packets get
> back through the Windows router:
> <http://www.petri.co.il/configuring_routing_in_w2k_pro_xp_pro.htm>
>
> In other words, you would need to configure the Windows router as a
> gateway in the hardware router.
>
Yes, that is what I said, you would need to add a route in the router,
pointed at the PC as a gateway, so it knows how to get to the subnet on the
other side of the PC.
So the question was, will the simple home cable router accept a packet that
was forwarded to it, with a different source IP subnet than the routers own
ethernet ?
I have never had to do this myself, which is why the question was posed.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:12:46 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988AE24D1D3E5thisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:vahsm2lv7katdd3j1iemb3eqs568af35e9@4ax.com :
>>
>> I think you'll find this more helpful with regard to how packets get
>> back through the Windows router:
>> <http://www.petri.co.il/configuring_routing_in_w2k_pro_xp_pro.htm>
>>
>> In other words, you would need to configure the Windows router as a
>> gateway in the hardware router.
>
>Yes, that is what I said, you would need to add a route in the router,
>pointed at the PC as a gateway, so it knows how to get to the subnet on the
>other side of the PC.
Not a static route, a gateway. That's a subtle but important
difference.
>So the question was, will the simple home cable router accept a packet that
>was forwarded to it, with a different source IP subnet than the routers own
>ethernet ?
>
>I have never had to do this myself, which is why the question was posed.
Sorry, but I choose not to play, since the idea is speculative and
silly. Either switch the Windows router to ICS, or take it out of the
network path.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:igjsm29cia74ku7tvaq0foqranl5a5svgu@4ax.com:
>>So the question was, will the simple home cable router accept a packet
>>that was forwarded to it, with a different source IP subnet than the
>>routers own ethernet ?
>>
>>I have never had to do this myself, which is why the question was
>>posed.
>
> Sorry, but I choose not to play, since the idea is speculative and
> silly. Either switch the Windows router to ICS, or take it out of the
> network path.
>
Why is this idea 'speculative and silly' ?
You can not see anyone breaking up their network into 2 segments like this?
If so, why would there be articles on how to do it, such as the link I
posted and the link you posted.
My posed question is valid. The only reason it is speculative about it is
you and I don't know if it will work or not, as neither of us have tried
it.....and, far from silly.
(Silly is like the post from a week or few ago where the poster was
creating a network by connecting each 'slave' PC into a separate NIC on a
master PC that was doing ICS, from 4 NICs, out 1 other NIC to the internet.
Now THAT is silly.)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:36:19 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988B80892DD56thisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:igjsm29cia74ku7tvaq0foqranl5a5svgu@4ax.com :
>> Sorry, but I choose not to play, since the idea is speculative and
>> silly. Either switch the Windows router to ICS, or take it out of the
>> network path.
>
>Why is this idea 'speculative and silly' ?
Because it makes no real sense.
>You can not see anyone breaking up their network into 2 segments like this?
Not if they know what they're doing.
>If so, why would there be articles on how to do it, such as the link I
>posted and the link you posted.
I suppose there can be valid cases for using a Windows machine as a
bridge, but this isn't one of them, and I'm frankly hard-pressed to
think of a case where different topology or just a real dedicated
hardware bridge wouldn't make more sense. That Microsoft has bridging
support and an article on how to do it isn't any sort of real
endorsement.
>My posed question is valid. The only reason it is speculative about it is
You've yet to post a valid reason for that configuration.
>you and I don't know if it will work or not, as neither of us have tried
>it.....and, far from silly.
I actually do know, and even gave you the answer.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:tabum2hd7n8vjkfudjs934iv8kmdadr6i4@4ax.com:
>>
>>Why is this idea 'speculative and silly' ?
>
> Because it makes no real sense.
To you.
>
>>You can not see anyone breaking up their network into 2 segments like
>>this?
>
> Not if they know what they're doing.
>
>>If so, why would there be articles on how to do it, such as the link I
>>posted and the link you posted.
>
> I suppose there can be valid cases for using a Windows machine as a
> bridge, but this isn't one of them, and I'm frankly hard-pressed to
> think of a case where different topology or just a real dedicated
> hardware bridge wouldn't make more sense. That Microsoft has bridging
> support and an article on how to do it isn't any sort of real
> endorsement.
Not bridging, routing.
>
>>My posed question is valid. The only reason it is speculative about it
>>is
>
> You've yet to post a valid reason for that configuration.
Why ? There is no valid reason for dumping a Chevy BB 454 into a street
vehicle that never touches a drag strip, but it's done constantly.
>
>>you and I don't know if it will work or not, as neither of us have
>>tried it.....and, far from silly.
>
> I actually do know, and even gave you the answer.
>
No, you never said, 'Yes, a typical home router will accept those
packets', or 'No, a typical home router will not accept those packets.'
Maybe what you claim as an answer was this..... 'Either switch the
Windows router to ICS, or take it out of the network path.'...but that
does not answer the question.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:49:02 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns988BA1338630Ethisnthatadelphianet@194.177.96.2 6>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:tabum2hd7n8vjkfudjs934iv8kmdadr6i4@4ax.com :
>> Because it makes no real sense.
>
>To you.
To a network engineer.
>> I suppose there can be valid cases for using a Windows machine as a
>> bridge, but this isn't one of them, and I'm frankly hard-pressed to
>> think of a case where different topology or just a real dedicated
>> hardware bridge wouldn't make more sense. That Microsoft has bridging
>> support and an article on how to do it isn't any sort of real
>> endorsement.
>
>Not bridging, routing.
Microsoft calls it "IP Forwarding".
>> You've yet to post a valid reason for that configuration.
>
>Why ?
I have no idea why you haven't.
>There is no valid reason for dumping a Chevy BB 454 into a street
>vehicle that never touches a drag strip, but it's done constantly.
Not by me. Nor am I interested in the technical issues.
>> I actually do know, and even gave you the answer.
>
>No, ...
I did.
I'm done. Have the last word.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
What is the functional purpose(s) of ... 
Linear Mode
