On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:26:03 +0000 (UTC),
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>If I understand the setup, you have several potential users, but should
>only allow three at a time. The only way to control that might be to limit
>the number of DHCP addresses in the pool, and have a short expiration time.
>The first three could connect, any others would have to manually assign
>addresses in order to use the network. That isn't security, but I'm not
>sure what you are trying to accomplish.
>
>I am also not sure that the DHCP leases can expire quickly enough for your
>needs. How often and how long are the users connected? How many users are
>you trying to make fit into the allowed pool of three?
Won't work. Microsloth DHCP will try to renew the lease in half the
lease time. First, the minimum lease time in RFC1541 is set to 1
hour. RFC2131 removed this minimum lease time restriction, but most
of the DCHP servers I've seen don't support the RFC2131 extensions and
expansions. About 4 years ago, I tried forcing the DHCP lease time to
15 minutes and found that old versions of Windoze 98, W2K pre-SP3, and
the early releases of XP, would do weird things. It varied from never
attempting to renew the lease to complaining that the delivered DHCP
lease was "corrupted" and therefore not accepting the initial DHCP
request. I have no clue if any of this has been fixed in the last 4
years but considering the large number of unpatched and out of date
systems currently in operation, I would suggest that 1 hr be
considered the minimum.
I just had another idea of how to do this. According to Cisco, the
NAT found in all cheapo routers is really PAT or Port Address
Translation. Real NAT (Cisco style) is a 1 to 1 mapping of routeable
IP addresses from the WAN side, to an equal number of LAN addresses.
This might work for whatever the OP is trying to accomplish. However,
the DI-524 cannot do this. The WRT54G with alternative firmware might
be able to do it. A more sophistocated router, such as Cisco, might
be necessary.
In the event that there are 3 routeable IP addresses delived by the
ISP, it is also possible to directly deliver these IP addresses to the
wireless clients. Again, the DI-524 is a lost cause for doing this,
and a more sophistocated router is required.
In both cases, there is no convenient mechanism for releasing the WAN
IP addresses. Whomever gets there first, wins. For release, one must
flush the arp table (this can be done automatically), which then
releases the IP address for the next user. In both cases, this can
turn into a real PITA.
--
Jeff Liebermann
(E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558