DG834G changing default gateway?

If I change the IP address of my DG834G from 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.174,
will that mean that the default gateway will become 192.168.0.174 ??

Does doing this stop me from adding any devices lower than 192.168.0.174 ?
For instance, could I still have a computer using 192.168.0.20, or
192.168.0.1 for that matter! ??

Thanks
Dave

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
@mail2me.com says...
> If I change the IP address of my DG834G from 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.174,
> will that mean that the default gateway will become 192.168.0.174 ??

Yes. Why would you want to do this?
>
> Does doing this stop me from adding any devices lower than 192.168.0.174 ?

Not unless you change the subnet mask.

> For instance, could I still have a computer using 192.168.0.20, or
> 192.168.0.1 for that matter! ??

Yes.

"Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
> @mail2me.com says...
>> If I change the IP address of my DG834G from 192.168.0.1 to
>> 192.168.0.174,
>> will that mean that the default gateway will become 192.168.0.174 ??
>
> Yes. Why would you want to do this?


Well its more for simplicity for us and to make it a touch more difficult to
guess what the default gateway is. The wireless part of the 834G isn't in
use. The wireless part of this setup is a Dlink, which is currently on .50
and we were thinking of moving this to .1 and making the 834G use something
less obvious like .174 or whatever... Most people would assume that the
gateway on the network would be .1, don't you think Rob?

So as far as I see it Rob, I could make these changes and all would be fine.
We currently have computers using higher and lower addresses than our choice
for the 834G (.174)

Am I making any sense Rob, please tell me if you think this idea is a waste
of time.

Thanks

"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
>> @mail2me.com says...
>>> If I change the IP address of my DG834G from 192.168.0.1 to
>>> 192.168.0.174,
>>> will that mean that the default gateway will become 192.168.0.174 ??
>>
>> Yes. Why would you want to do this?
>
>
> Well its more for simplicity for us and to make it a touch more difficult
> to guess what the default gateway is. The wireless part of the 834G isn't
> in use. The wireless part of this setup is a Dlink, which is currently on
> .50 and we were thinking of moving this to .1 and making the 834G use
> something less obvious like .174 or whatever... Most people would assume
> that the gateway on the network would be .1, don't you think Rob?
>
> So as far as I see it Rob, I could make these changes and all would be
> fine. We currently have computers using higher and lower addresses than
> our choice for the 834G (.174)
>
> Am I making any sense Rob, please tell me if you think this idea is a
> waste of time.
>
> Thanks

I forgot to say that all our employees are forced through a proxy server on
this system and one or two have tried adding a default gateway and have
overcome our proxy. I think they just guessed that the default gateway
would be .1 and they were right of course.

David

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
@mail2me.com says...
>
> "David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
> >> @mail2me.com says...
> >>> If I change the IP address of my DG834G from 192.168.0.1 to
> >>> 192.168.0.174,
> >>> will that mean that the default gateway will become 192.168.0.174 ??
> >>
> >> Yes. Why would you want to do this?
> >
> >
> > Well its more for simplicity for us and to make it a touch more difficult
> > to guess what the default gateway is. The wireless part of the 834G isn't
> > in use. The wireless part of this setup is a Dlink, which is currently on
> > .50 and we were thinking of moving this to .1 and making the 834G use
> > something less obvious like .174 or whatever... Most people would assume
> > that the gateway on the network would be .1, don't you think Rob?
> >
> > So as far as I see it Rob, I could make these changes and all would be
> > fine. We currently have computers using higher and lower addresses than
> > our choice for the 834G (.174)
> >
> > Am I making any sense Rob, please tell me if you think this idea is a
> > waste of time.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> I forgot to say that all our employees are forced through a proxy server on
> this system and one or two have tried adding a default gateway and have
> overcome our proxy. I think they just guessed that the default gateway
> would be .1 and they were right of course.
>
Surely it would be easier to configure outbound rules on the router
to block access from anything but the proxy server?

"Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
> @mail2me.com says...
>>
>> "David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >
>> > "Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
>> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
>> >> @mail2me.com says...
>> >>> If I change the IP address of my DG834G from 192.168.0.1 to
>> >>> 192.168.0.174,
>> >>> will that mean that the default gateway will become 192.168.0.174 ??
>> >>
>> >> Yes. Why would you want to do this?
>> >
>> >
>> > Well its more for simplicity for us and to make it a touch more
>> > difficult
>> > to guess what the default gateway is. The wireless part of the 834G
>> > isn't
>> > in use. The wireless part of this setup is a Dlink, which is currently
>> > on
>> > .50 and we were thinking of moving this to .1 and making the 834G use
>> > something less obvious like .174 or whatever... Most people would
>> > assume
>> > that the gateway on the network would be .1, don't you think Rob?
>> >
>> > So as far as I see it Rob, I could make these changes and all would be
>> > fine. We currently have computers using higher and lower addresses than
>> > our choice for the 834G (.174)
>> >
>> > Am I making any sense Rob, please tell me if you think this idea is a
>> > waste of time.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>>
>> I forgot to say that all our employees are forced through a proxy server
>> on
>> this system and one or two have tried adding a default gateway and have
>> overcome our proxy. I think they just guessed that the default gateway
>> would be .1 and they were right of course.
>>
> Surely it would be easier to configure outbound rules on the router
> to block access from anything but the proxy server?

We have tried that, but it appears that ICQ and the like can still connect
when this has been done.... Any idea how ICQ is still; able to connect even
though we have blocked the outbound stuff from a particular address?

David

David wrote:
8><..............................................
> We have tried that, but it appears that ICQ and the like can still connect
> when this has been done.... Any idea how ICQ is still; able to connect even
> though we have blocked the outbound stuff from a particular address?
>
> David
>
>
Is this a re-hash of an earlier post by john47623756.If your users have
admin privileges and are allowed to load whatever s/ware they like on
their computers you are in a no-win situation.The owner of the network
needs to establish a "Security Policy" detailing exactly what can and
cannot be done on the network and rigidly enforce it.
If you are using a "Socks" proxy as your "Proxy Server" then ICQ will
use this.

NBT

"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
[snip]
> > Surely it would be easier to configure outbound rules on the router
> > to block access from anything but the proxy server?
>
> We have tried that, but it appears that ICQ and the like can still
> connect when this has been done.... Any idea how ICQ is still; able to
> connect even though we have blocked the outbound stuff from a particular
> address?

Because the firewall did what you told it to, not what you wanted it to.
It's not absolutely clear what you want it to do, just like when "John"
<(E-Mail Removed)> was asking essentially the same question ten days
ago. If you want to block all access except from the proxy machine, the
following outbound rules should do the job:

#1 Service: Any
Action: ALLOW always
LAN users: Single address
start: <IP address of proxy machine>
WAN users: Any
Log: Never

#2 Service: Any
Action: BLOCK always
LAN users: Any
WAN users: Any
Log: up to you

Note that if users are able to set a default gateway, they are also able to
change their IP address. Even if everyone goes through the proxy, you have
no way to be sure who accessed what unless you use authentication in the
proxy.

Also, unplugging the proxy machine and setting the IP address of any other
machine to the proxy's would grant full unrestricted access for that
machine. But I don't think there's much you can do about that with your
setup.

Alex

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "David" david366461
@mail2me.com says...
> "Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
<snip>
> > Surely it would be easier to configure outbound rules on the router
> > to block access from anything but the proxy server?
>
> We have tried that, but it appears that ICQ and the like can still connect
> when this has been done.... Any idea how ICQ is still; able to connect even
> though we have blocked the outbound stuff from a particular address?
>
Try setting the default rule to block everything, then creating rules
to allow only legitimate traffic.

"Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> Try setting the default rule to block everything, then creating rules
> to allow only legitimate traffic.

Assuming you can change the default rule; it doesn't look like you can.
According to the manual, you edit rules by selecting the relevant "radio"
button on the left then clicking Edit, but the Default rules for
Inbound/Outbound do not have buttons in the screenshots.

Alex