Can I Use my XP box as a Gateway?

I have linked my Linux box (running Mandrake 6.1) to the main family
computer which has a Printer and a Modem and I am trying to share those
resources but cannot get them to work.
I'm a bit of a newbie so I don't really know what I'm doing, I have been
playing with it but because I don't know the problem I don't know how to fix
it.
I can get the Windows box to see the Linux box and can even see shared
resources on the Linux box but cannot get the Linux box to use the printer
or the internet.
I have activated XP's built in ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) and set
that machine as the Gateway but it makes no difference. I'll be happy to
provide you with any information that may help you answer my query.
Ta very much.
David Lumm

David Lumm wrote:

> I have activated XP's built in ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) and set
> that machine as the Gateway


Why on earth would you put a windows box in front of a Linux box as a
gateway?!? Almost like taping your money to the fence. Put the linux
box as a gateway and save your windows box before someone gets it or it
goes down and then your LAN will not have access to the 'net.

Two NIC cards and run iptables.. VERY simple.



--



"Windows: In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

redhat_devel wrote:

> David Lumm wrote:
>
> > I have activated XP's built in ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) and set
> > that machine as the Gateway
>
> Why on earth would you put a windows box in front of a Linux box as a
> gateway?!? Almost like taping your money to the fence. Put the linux
> box as a gateway and save your windows box before someone gets it or it
> goes down and then your LAN will not have access to the 'net.
>
> Two NIC cards and run iptables.. VERY simple.
>
> --
>
> "Windows: In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

He's a throll! He can buy hardware router for the price of 2 NIC's.

Wang Yu III wrote:
> redhat_devel wrote:
>
>
>>David Lumm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have activated XP's built in ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) and set
>>>that machine as the Gateway
>>
>>Why on earth would you put a windows box in front of a Linux box as a
>>gateway?!? Almost like taping your money to the fence. Put the linux
>>box as a gateway and save your windows box before someone gets it or it
>>goes down and then your LAN will not have access to the 'net.
>>
>>Two NIC cards and run iptables.. VERY simple.
>>
>>--
>>
>>"Windows: In a world without fences, who needs gates?"
>
>
> He's a throll! He can buy hardware router for the price of 2 NIC's.
>


he all ready has a linux box and one nic card. Another $5-$10 nic card
is more than a $30-$100 unit? Plus iptables, you have more control...
you do the math.


--



"Windows: In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

redhat_devel graced us by uttering:
> Wang Yu III wrote:
>> He can buy hardware router for the price of 2 NIC's.
>
> he all ready has a linux box and one nic card. Another $5-$10
> nic card is more than a $30-$100 unit? Plus iptables, you have
> more control... you do the math.

Have you factored in the time it would take the user to both learn
linux networking AND learn iptables, starting from a Windows
perspective? The man-month may be mythical, but time is still
money.

Personally, I agree. A hardware router would be the simplest and
(overall) cheapest way to route Win32, linux, and printers on a
home LAN w/ connexion sharing.

Cheers,
Tim Hammerquist
--
I'm not going to die with you just because you made lunch for me.
Of course, if it had been dinner...
-- Haruki Murakami, "Norwegian Wood"

Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> redhat_devel graced us by uttering:
>
>>Wang Yu III wrote:
>>
>>>He can buy hardware router for the price of 2 NIC's.
>>
>>he all ready has a linux box and one nic card. Another $5-$10
>>nic card is more than a $30-$100 unit? Plus iptables, you have
>>more control... you do the math.
>
>
> Have you factored in the time it would take the user to both learn
> linux networking AND learn iptables, starting from a Windows
> perspective? The man-month may be mythical, but time is still
> money.
>

Umm, a novice I see.. There are firewall packages that you just run and
few clicks (less than on a linksys) and its all done..
or you can use IPtables manually, which yes, requires know-how, but its
worth it.



--



"Windows: In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> redhat_devel graced us by uttering:
>> Wang Yu III wrote:
>>> He can buy hardware router for the price of 2 NIC's.
>>
>> he all ready has a linux box and one nic card. Another $5-$10
>> nic card is more than a $30-$100 unit? Plus iptables, you have
>> more control... you do the math.
>
> Have you factored in the time it would take the user to both learn
> linux networking AND learn iptables, starting from a Windows
> perspective? The man-month may be mythical, but time is still
> money.

He doesn't have to learn... ClarkConnect @ http://clarkconnect.com is
amazingly easy to set up.

redhat_devel used thousands of usenet kilobytes to say:
> There are firewall packages that you just run and few clicks
> (less than on a linksys) and its all done.. or you can use
> IPtables manually, which yes, requires know-how, but its worth
> it.

My apologies. I assumed that if you'd meant a dedicated linux
router package that you'd have *said* so. But if the OP is
supposed to discern "Smoothwall" (or similar) when you say
"iptables", it sets a dangerous precedent.

Yes, iptables is more complicated than hardware routers or
dedicated distros, but it works quite well for my router/firewall
and I would agree that it's worth it *to me*. I personally
wouldn't recommend raw iptables to someone in the OP's position,
but you're free to dispense whatever advice you see fit.

(Oh, and if the user would like a red, green *and* DMZ zone on
the LAN, he's going to need more than just 2 NICs on his linux
router...)

(...besides, linksys routers already run linux anyway:
<http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/3580>)

> Umm, a novice I see..

I had tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating you
like a real person, but a troll's a troll.

Tim Hammerquist
--
The UNIX system has a command, 'nice', which allows a user to
voluntarily reduce the priority of his process, in order to be nice
to the other users. Nobody ever uses it.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum, "Modern Operating Systems" (p.65)

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tim Hammerquist wrote:
>> Umm, a novice I see..
>
> I had tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating you
> like a real person, but a troll's a troll.

I'm sure he was talking about the OP being a novice. But no matter,
you're STILL not getting the point that these routers of which you speak
do not have nor support modems! AFAIK anyone in the OP's situation of
wanting to share a dialup connection has to use a "regular" computer to
manage the connection. (Or is there a router product which has a modem?)
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

/dev/rob0 graced us by uttering:
> AFAIK anyone in the OP's situation of wanting to share a dialup
> connection has to use a "regular" computer to manage the
> connection. (Or is there a router product which has a modem?)

Nowhere did the OP state he had a dialup modem. He only said
"modem". My home LAN has a modem. It's a DSL modem. It will
work with a router because my ISP authenticates via DHCP.
However, I don't know if many routers support PPPoE connexions.

Tim Hammerquist
--
"Elbonians are our best friends.
Now excuse me while I tenderize myself."
-- Ratbert