On 25 Aug 2004 08:00:57 -0700, "KW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Just curious.. Why would it be doomed to fail? Are you saying that
>for security reasons you can't trust the user not to tinker, and put
>the gateway back in? Or do you think that XP will somehow magically fix
>this?
Your first guess is the correct one.
And I certainly wouldn't trust XP to "fix" anything...
>To sometimes connect the XP machine to get the occosional windows
>update etc. (which is sometimes often) it is much easier to put the
>gateway address in, run the updates, then take it back out. Making the
>router configurations each time you want to do this is sensless. Unless
>of course you are doing this for security reasons and don't trust the
>user at the machine. In which case, I would think that the user
>wouldn't have administrative privileges to the machine and this would
>prohibit them from changing TCP/IP settings anyway. So, I don't
>understand your remarks.
The OP specifically requested a way to preclude one system from reaching the
internet. He did not make that a conditional request, period. Based on his
input alone, using the MAC filtering ability of his router (if it indeed
supports that mechanism - and I've yet to see a SOHO router that doesn't,
fwiw) is clearly superior than diddling with IP addresses.
Btw, in the future, consider including at least a little context from the post
you're replying to. It's the polite and proper thing to do...
hth ;-)
|