Need assurance I'm not an idiot...

OK, here's the thing:

I've been posting a topic over at comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips but it is
about Networking, and some person keeps insisting I am a complete idiot.

Here's the deal, I've got 2 PCs that BOTH have ONE WIRED ETHERNET card. It
doesn't matter that one is a laptop and the other is a desktop, each has ONE
WIRED ETHERNET connection.

Now, the other thing is that I have CABLE INTERNET, which uses one of the
ETHERNET ports.

I know as well as you that the only way to connect these two is to use a
router, or use the firewire ports they both have (which is what I was
attempting to find out how to do).

Yet, this person insists that because each PC has ONE WIRED ETHERNET port I
can simply put a SWITCH or HUB between them and get everything working.
Yet, that leaves me high and dry and off the Internet, which I have
explained numerous times, yet he insists it won't work.

I tell him that I would need to have a 2nd network card in one of the PCs,
the desktop since the laptop has no extra slots, but he tells me all I need
is a switch.

I'm right, right?

Dear A. Joe.

You probably both right.

To interconnect your 2 PC's (ignoring the internet for the moment) requires
either a cross over cable for direct connection, hub, switch or device that
incorporates a hub or switch - many routers do.

Since you have only 2 NIC's and you want to plug in your cable modem that
requires 1 NIC, you need either another NIC (on the non laptop PC) + a cross
over cable, OR a hub / switch.

The advantage of the hub / switch combination is that 2nd PC will not have
to be powered for the laptop to connect to internet - assuming you cable
modem will allow this.

The advantage of getting another NIC in your real PC is that you can then
configure that PC as a firewall using say ZoneAlarm and protect both PC's
from garbage. You will need a software router to get the laptop to be able
to see the internet. Under Windows 2000 and up you can configure internet
connection sharing. There are shareware and other low cost programs that
will also allow you to do this EG WinGate. If you are running Linux then
you'll need to ask a Linux expert on the answer here.

The disadvantage of this config is that the real PC will have to be switched
on all the time the laptop is to connect.

For security reasons I would head for this more difficult option - the one
you are adamant about since that gives you the chance to put in a firewall
and protect yourself.

The price difference is probably really negligible - you only need a 3 port
hub to get this going or 1 NIC + shareware. Old 10mbit hubs are probably
getting tossed out so I would expect you should be able to pick one up for
next to nothing, but 10 mbit NIC's are chicken feed too - I'd pay no more
than $5 ($2 sounds generous) for a 2nd hand 10mbit nic. While you are out
shopping if you come across a cheap Hub or switch - grab it and you will
have both bases covered and a real LAN to boot (off .

Idiot? No, Idiots don't learn.

HTH
- Tim



"Anonymous Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wQnMa.9819$926.208@sccrnsc03...
> OK, here's the thing:
>
> I've been posting a topic over at comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips but it is
> about Networking, and some person keeps insisting I am a complete idiot.
>
> Here's the deal, I've got 2 PCs that BOTH have ONE WIRED ETHERNET card.
It
> doesn't matter that one is a laptop and the other is a desktop, each has
ONE
> WIRED ETHERNET connection.
>
> Now, the other thing is that I have CABLE INTERNET, which uses one of the
> ETHERNET ports.
>
> I know as well as you that the only way to connect these two is to use a
> router, or use the firewire ports they both have (which is what I was
> attempting to find out how to do).
>
> Yet, this person insists that because each PC has ONE WIRED ETHERNET port
I
> can simply put a SWITCH or HUB between them and get everything working.
> Yet, that leaves me high and dry and off the Internet, which I have
> explained numerous times, yet he insists it won't work.
>
> I tell him that I would need to have a 2nd network card in one of the PCs,
> the desktop since the laptop has no extra slots, but he tells me all I
need
> is a switch.
>
> I'm right, right?
>
>

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:22:21 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>OK, here's the thing:
>
>I've been posting a topic over at comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips but it is
>about Networking, and some person keeps insisting I am a complete idiot.
>
>Here's the deal, I've got 2 PCs that BOTH have ONE WIRED ETHERNET card. It
>doesn't matter that one is a laptop and the other is a desktop, each has ONE
>WIRED ETHERNET connection.
>
>Now, the other thing is that I have CABLE INTERNET, which uses one of the
>ETHERNET ports.
>
>I know as well as you that the only way to connect these two is to use a
>router, or use the firewire ports they both have (which is what I was
>attempting to find out how to do).
>
>Yet, this person insists that because each PC has ONE WIRED ETHERNET port I
>can simply put a SWITCH or HUB between them and get everything working.
>Yet, that leaves me high and dry and off the Internet, which I have
>explained numerous times, yet he insists it won't work.
>
>I tell him that I would need to have a 2nd network card in one of the PCs,
>the desktop since the laptop has no extra slots, but he tells me all I need
>is a switch.
>
>I'm right, right?

The answer is: "It depends"

If your DSL provider can/will provide more than a single IP address through
the modem, then your two systems could obtain IP addresses and at least be
able to "talk" through the hub or switch out through the modem to the WAN. Not
something I'd advise if only because the cost of multiple IP addresses would
likely pay for a 4 port 10/100 switch/router in short order.

But if your DSL provider will only provide a single IP address through your
modem to your local net, no switch or hub *alone* is going to get what you
want. You'd need a router - or you'd need to run a NAT proxy (that acts like a
router) on one of the systems, and provide a second network connection from
that machine to the other.

Which is where the Firewire ports come into play in your case: XP Pro, at
least, provides networking support for at least some Firewire ports (and
perhaps all - I only have experience with the Firewire ports on my laptop and
the port on my youngest son's Audigy-2).

So you could hook the modem directly to the desktop ethernet port, then hook
the laptop to the desktop via the Firewire ports, and then have the desktop
run a NAT proxy (ICS, Wingate, SON, etc). No need for a second ethernet hose
on the proxy server, no need for a router. That said, it's not a configuration
I recommend as a matter of course, as it depends on the proxy server being
powered up and running even if only the proxy client is in use.

Bottom line: yeah, depending on what OS you're running, you could cobble
together a solution that'd work after a fashion, without buying any more
hardware than you already have (well, except for a Firewire cable ;-)

/daytripper (And tell Keith I said "Howdy" ;-)

A. Joe,

I am in agreement with daytripper...

The cost of a firewire cable capable of this interconnect is probably [much]
greater than the cost of a 10mbit NIC. Have a look about for organisations
that recycle old computer components... Insist on a guarantee and assurance
that the device works. I am not a fan of using devices not designed for
networking (or what they are designed for) for networking 'cos you often
loose something else and often also do not get reliability or performance.
With firewire you are probably 100% safe on the performance and perhaps
reliability points - if it works.

- Tim


"daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:22:21 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >OK, here's the thing:
> >
> >I've been posting a topic over at comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips but it
is
> >about Networking, and some person keeps insisting I am a complete idiot.
> >
> >Here's the deal, I've got 2 PCs that BOTH have ONE WIRED ETHERNET card.
It
> >doesn't matter that one is a laptop and the other is a desktop, each has
ONE
> >WIRED ETHERNET connection.
> >
> >Now, the other thing is that I have CABLE INTERNET, which uses one of the
> >ETHERNET ports.
> >
> >I know as well as you that the only way to connect these two is to use a
> >router, or use the firewire ports they both have (which is what I was
> >attempting to find out how to do).
> >
> >Yet, this person insists that because each PC has ONE WIRED ETHERNET port
I
> >can simply put a SWITCH or HUB between them and get everything working.
> >Yet, that leaves me high and dry and off the Internet, which I have
> >explained numerous times, yet he insists it won't work.
> >
> >I tell him that I would need to have a 2nd network card in one of the
PCs,
> >the desktop since the laptop has no extra slots, but he tells me all I
need
> >is a switch.
> >
> >I'm right, right?
>
> The answer is: "It depends"
>
> If your DSL provider can/will provide more than a single IP address
through
> the modem, then your two systems could obtain IP addresses and at least be
> able to "talk" through the hub or switch out through the modem to the WAN.
Not
> something I'd advise if only because the cost of multiple IP addresses
would
> likely pay for a 4 port 10/100 switch/router in short order.
>
> But if your DSL provider will only provide a single IP address through
your
> modem to your local net, no switch or hub *alone* is going to get what you
> want. You'd need a router - or you'd need to run a NAT proxy (that acts
like a
> router) on one of the systems, and provide a second network connection
from
> that machine to the other.
>
> Which is where the Firewire ports come into play in your case: XP Pro, at
> least, provides networking support for at least some Firewire ports (and
> perhaps all - I only have experience with the Firewire ports on my laptop
and
> the port on my youngest son's Audigy-2).
>
> So you could hook the modem directly to the desktop ethernet port, then
hook
> the laptop to the desktop via the Firewire ports, and then have the
desktop
> run a NAT proxy (ICS, Wingate, SON, etc). No need for a second ethernet
hose
> on the proxy server, no need for a router. That said, it's not a
configuration
> I recommend as a matter of course, as it depends on the proxy server being
> powered up and running even if only the proxy client is in use.
>
> Bottom line: yeah, depending on what OS you're running, you could cobble
> together a solution that'd work after a fashion, without buying any more
> hardware than you already have (well, except for a Firewire cable ;-)
>
> /daytripper (And tell Keith I said "Howdy" ;-)

get a router, make life easy
or do your homework and put two ip's on the desktop nic and enable ICS

I think I forgot to mention I already had the firewire cable.

I think this would be the best method to pursue, for now.

"Tim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdtete$bde$(E-Mail Removed)...
> A. Joe,
>
> I am in agreement with daytripper...
>
> The cost of a firewire cable capable of this interconnect is probably
[much]
> greater than the cost of a 10mbit NIC. Have a look about for organisations
> that recycle old computer components... Insist on a guarantee and
assurance
> that the device works. I am not a fan of using devices not designed for
> networking (or what they are designed for) for networking 'cos you often
> loose something else and often also do not get reliability or performance.
> With firewire you are probably 100% safe on the performance and perhaps
> reliability points - if it works.
>
> - Tim
>
>
> "daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:22:21 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> >
> > >OK, here's the thing:
> > >
> > >I've been posting a topic over at comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips but it
> is
> > >about Networking, and some person keeps insisting I am a complete
idiot.
> > >
> > >Here's the deal, I've got 2 PCs that BOTH have ONE WIRED ETHERNET card.
> It
> > >doesn't matter that one is a laptop and the other is a desktop, each
has
> ONE
> > >WIRED ETHERNET connection.
> > >
> > >Now, the other thing is that I have CABLE INTERNET, which uses one of
the
> > >ETHERNET ports.
> > >
> > >I know as well as you that the only way to connect these two is to use
a
> > >router, or use the firewire ports they both have (which is what I was
> > >attempting to find out how to do).
> > >
> > >Yet, this person insists that because each PC has ONE WIRED ETHERNET
port
> I
> > >can simply put a SWITCH or HUB between them and get everything working.
> > >Yet, that leaves me high and dry and off the Internet, which I have
> > >explained numerous times, yet he insists it won't work.
> > >
> > >I tell him that I would need to have a 2nd network card in one of the
> PCs,
> > >the desktop since the laptop has no extra slots, but he tells me all I
> need
> > >is a switch.
> > >
> > >I'm right, right?
> >
> > The answer is: "It depends"
> >
> > If your DSL provider can/will provide more than a single IP address
> through
> > the modem, then your two systems could obtain IP addresses and at least
be
> > able to "talk" through the hub or switch out through the modem to the
WAN.
> Not
> > something I'd advise if only because the cost of multiple IP addresses
> would
> > likely pay for a 4 port 10/100 switch/router in short order.
> >
> > But if your DSL provider will only provide a single IP address through
> your
> > modem to your local net, no switch or hub *alone* is going to get what
you
> > want. You'd need a router - or you'd need to run a NAT proxy (that acts
> like a
> > router) on one of the systems, and provide a second network connection
> from
> > that machine to the other.
> >
> > Which is where the Firewire ports come into play in your case: XP Pro,
at
> > least, provides networking support for at least some Firewire ports (and
> > perhaps all - I only have experience with the Firewire ports on my
laptop
> and
> > the port on my youngest son's Audigy-2).
> >
> > So you could hook the modem directly to the desktop ethernet port, then
> hook
> > the laptop to the desktop via the Firewire ports, and then have the
> desktop
> > run a NAT proxy (ICS, Wingate, SON, etc). No need for a second ethernet
> hose
> > on the proxy server, no need for a router. That said, it's not a
> configuration
> > I recommend as a matter of course, as it depends on the proxy server
being
> > powered up and running even if only the proxy client is in use.
> >
> > Bottom line: yeah, depending on what OS you're running, you could cobble
> > together a solution that'd work after a fashion, without buying any more
> > hardware than you already have (well, except for a Firewire cable ;-)
> >
> > /daytripper (And tell Keith I said "Howdy" ;-)
>
>