Firewire Networking??

[Anonymous Joe]

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:y%wJa.168455$G_.12286@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... "David Wang" <foo@bar.invalid> wrote in message news:bd5r8t$71m$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu... I'm sure the reason he's asking about Firewire networking is because
he wants to try it without putting in any more cards into his system. ? He's got a desktop and a laptop. "both have 1 network card" I assumed that this meant that the laptop has a wireless network card and the desktop has a ethernet card. The wire/wireless combo router would solve that problem. True enough. But I think he wants to skip the router and use one of his
PC's as the router, while the other one connects to the first through Firewire. Yousuf Khan

Heh....everyone is wrong. Both the laptop and desktop have WIRED ports.
Kinda dumb for the laptop to have that, but it is a 100mbps line.

The laptop is a slim design, and my friend has told me it has no PCMCIA
slots and no built-in wireless connectivitiy. Mind you, these aren't my
PCs, but my friends....

While he does have a router, it is stuck in place at his father's office,
while it is used to connect his father to the Internet at his office. This
is because the office has DSL, and he has no software and forgot what
software it was that connects to the Internet (VerizonDSL...IDK why he just
doesn't call them and say what's up with this I need another CD).

Either way, a 400mbps LAN is cool, and he does end up transfering many GBs
to the desktop, especially since I added a CD-RW drive for him just a few
days ago.

Anyways, whether or not he could get the router back is meaningless, because
I've found something I can't get working and want to fix that ;)

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <Y4LJa.2732$Ab2.6058@sccrnsc01>, no@spam.please says... "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message news:y%wJa.168455$G_.12286@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... "David Wang" <foo@bar.invalid> wrote in message news:bd5r8t$71m$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu... > I'm sure the reason he's asking about Firewire networking is because he > wants to try it without putting in any more cards into his system. ? He's got a desktop and a laptop. "both have 1 network card" I assumed that this meant that the laptop has a wireless network card and the desktop has a ethernet card. The wire/wireless combo router would solve that problem. True enough. But I think he wants to skip the router and use one of his PC's as the router, while the other one connects to the first through Firewire. Yousuf Khan Heh....everyone is wrong. Both the laptop and desktop have WIRED ports. Kinda dumb for the laptop to have that, but it is a 100mbps line.

Heh, perhaps everyone is wrong because they're trying to *GUESS* what
you have in mind? If you'd just make yourself a tad clearer...
While he does have a router, it is stuck in place at his father's office, while it is used to connect his father to the Internet at his office. This is because the office has DSL, and he has no software and forgot what software it was that connects to the Internet (VerizonDSL...IDK why he just doesn't call them and say what's up with this I need another CD).

Assuming he has an Ethernet he's trying to connect two computers to
(line from the router?), why doesn't he just get an Ethernet switch or
even a hub? These things are cheap these days.
Either way, a 400mbps LAN is cool, and he does end up transfering many GBs to the desktop, especially since I added a CD-RW drive for him just a few days ago. Anyways, whether or not he could get the router back is meaningless, because I've found something I can't get working and want to fix that ;)

Suit yourself! If you like tilting windmills go fer it.

--
KEith

[Anonymous Joe]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19621458d60db6559899ea@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Y4LJa.2732$Ab2.6058@sccrnsc01>, no@spam.please says... "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message news:y%wJa.168455$G_.12286@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... "David Wang" <foo@bar.invalid> wrote in message news:bd5r8t$71m$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu... > > I'm sure the reason he's asking about Firewire networking is
because he > > wants to try it without putting in any more cards into his system. > > ? He's got a desktop and a laptop. > > "both have 1 network card" > > I assumed that this meant that the laptop has a wireless network
card > and the desktop has a ethernet card. > > The wire/wireless combo router would solve that problem. True enough. But I think he wants to skip the router and use one of
his PC's as the router, while the other one connects to the first through
Firewire. Yousuf Khan Heh....everyone is wrong. Both the laptop and desktop have WIRED ports. Kinda dumb for the laptop to have that, but it is a 100mbps line. Heh, perhaps everyone is wrong because they're trying to *GUESS* what you have in mind? If you'd just make yourself a tad clearer...

And I quote myself:
Both have firewire, and both have 1 network card. So,
he could get one on the internet via cable modem, but then theres no way
to
use traditional network.

Now, show me anything that defines traditional network as wireless as one
person suggested.

And I quote myself again:
Wondering if anybody here has got the firewire networking to work in W2K
by
some chance. And if so, what they did.

That means I am looking to find a way to get the firewire network working in
Windows 2000.

True, after that I did say "Any other suggestions?" However, if I was
trying to pursue this it probably means that I am not seeking to have my
friend buy a router. While this may be a little unclear for some, Yosuf got
it right on the mark.

Anyways, I think I have found the solution. I can use Unibrain's FireNet
software. I got this by doing exactly what the first response was, to
search groups.google.com for 2000 firewire network, and I got that advice.
While he does have a router, it is stuck in place at his father's
office, while it is used to connect his father to the Internet at his office.
This is because the office has DSL, and he has no software and forgot what software it was that connects to the Internet (VerizonDSL...IDK why he
just doesn't call them and say what's up with this I need another CD). Assuming he has an Ethernet he's trying to connect two computers to (line from the router?), why doesn't he just get an Ethernet switch or even a hub? These things are cheap these days.

Yes, they are cheap. But why spend money on something that would only be a
temporary fix for the time between he would get this hub/switch and be
running ICS on the 2000 machine and have to get a second network card (one
for the network, one for the cable modem, there is NO way around this for a
traditional hub/switch-based wired network) when he could simply bring in
the router he has already bought? Altogther, a hub and a network card might
cost $50. Then he gets 10Mbps access between PCs. If he bought a switch,
then he gets 100Mbps access, but also has to spend more than $50.

If he can get the firewire to work properly, then he has spent nothing,
because he already had firewire on both computers, and a proper cable to
link between the two.

So, 10Mbps for $50, 100Mbps for $70, or 400Mbps for $0. This is tough....
:)

Although FireNet does cost money, there is also a 30-day trial of it, and
you can renew it. Either way, within 30 days he could have the router back,
so it could very well just cost nothing in the end to get a temporary
super-high-speed LAN ;)

Anyways, I'd like to see how a 400Mbps LAN works.

When I was searching for a post about how to get firewire network to work in
Windows 2000, I came across a post where somebody argued that there is no
difference between a 100Mbps wired LAN and a 400Mbps firewire LAN, because
no hard drive can write that fast, not even 100Mbps. I found this funny,
since he had got the units confused and kept defending it. Turns out that
the 400Mbps is only half the speed of an ATA/100 device's maximum speed.
While no drives can sustain a 50MB/sec write speed, many can do half of
that, 25MB/sec. So, now you've used 200Mbps, which is twice as fast as the
100Mbps theoretical. In practice, the 100Mbps turns out to sustain around
65Mbps for me, so that'd be 8MB/sec. Now, we can tell the difference, since
the firewire had a theoretical maximum of 400Mbps, even with only 65% usage
like the Ethernet, we get 260Mbps, which turns out to be 32.5MB/sec. Since
he does have all the parts working in ATA/100, he could very well get this
32.5MB/sec speed, if not the maximum his drive can write at. Try comparing
that to your puny 8MB/sec wired LAN :) Either way, like I said below, I
found something I can't get to work, and want to fix that ;)

Luckily for that situation, MS never implemented IEEE1394 network
capabilities into 2000. Apparently XP has it, as I found a firewire network
device on the laptop when I plugged it into the desktop. But I guess you
have to fool 2000 into it. Not sure about ME, I've heard it has built-in
and I've heard you need to trick it. I know NT and 9x don't have it at all,
so you need to trick them like 2000.

I guess firewire networking will never catch on, the cables become too large
to be usable and financially feasible, unlike the Ethernet. Especially for
me, because I just make my own, probably like some of you do.
Either way, a 400mbps LAN is cool, and he does end up transfering many
GBs to the desktop, especially since I added a CD-RW drive for him just a
few days ago. Anyways, whether or not he could get the router back is meaningless,
because I've found something I can't get working and want to fix that ;) Suit yourself! If you like tilting windmills go fer it.

I'm off to tilt windmills, then :)
-- KEith

[Anonymous Joe]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1962ca1793e7611998a4d1@enews.newsguy.com... In article <OG5Ka.12449$nG.14585@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, no@spam.please says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.19621458d60db6559899ea@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Y4LJa.2732$Ab2.6058@sccrnsc01>, no@spam.please says... > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message > news:y%wJa.168455$G_.12286@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > > "David Wang" <foo@bar.invalid> wrote in message > > news:bd5r8t$71m$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu... > > > > I'm sure the reason he's asking about Firewire networking is because > he > > > > wants to try it without putting in any more cards into his
system. > > > > > > ? He's got a desktop and a laptop. > > > > > > "both have 1 network card" > > > > > > I assumed that this meant that the laptop has a wireless network card > > > and the desktop has a ethernet card. > > > > > > The wire/wireless combo router would solve that problem. > > > > True enough. But I think he wants to skip the router and use one
of his > PC's > > as the router, while the other one connects to the first through Firewire. > > > > Yousuf Khan > > Heh....everyone is wrong. Both the laptop and desktop have WIRED
ports. > Kinda dumb for the laptop to have that, but it is a 100mbps line. Heh, perhaps everyone is wrong because they're trying to *GUESS* what you have in mind? If you'd just make yourself a tad clearer... And I quote myself: Both have firewire, and both have 1 network card. So, he could get one on the internet via cable modem, but then theres no
way to use traditional network. Which is incomplete and *wrong*.

Keith, you have wandered off the trail....

I did not suggest it was complete, but it is a direct quote.
Now, show me anything that defines traditional network as wireless as
one person suggested. I never suggested a wireless connection, nut! Jees, you have a problem with people trying to *HELP* your sorry ass!

Keith, again, I said "as one person suggested" Nowhere in those words did I
say "Keith R. Williams has suggested I use a wireless connection".

There's a difference here, and you have to be very sure of what you are
reading before you blast someone.
And I quote myself again: Wondering if anybody here has got the firewire networking to work in
W2K by some chance. And if so, what they did. That means I am looking to find a way to get the firewire network
working in Windows 2000. GO figure. You're trying to "help" someone by doing something *SILLY*.

Like I say directly below this, I did say "Any other suggestions?" I can't
argue with myself.

You didn't actually help, well, no, you did say he should get a switch.
Unfortuantley for that to work, he would need a 2nd network card. He
already bought a crossover cable so he can link the two together, but then
he gets 10Mbps and no internet. The switch would put him in the same
position, except with 100Mbps. True, after that I did say "Any other suggestions?" However, if I was trying to pursue this it probably means that I am not seeking to have my friend buy a router. While this may be a little unclear for some, Yosuf
got it right on the mark. NO *router* is needed, though you still don't specify the problem succinctly. A switch or hub might just work. A router may be overkill.

Well, there are 4 options:
1 - Get the router from office, to do this he would need to get the DSL
working there properly
2 - Use a crossover cable and a 2nd network card, need to get 2nd net card
3 - Use a switch/hub and a 2nd network card, need to get 2nd net card and
switch/hub
4 - Use firewire network, need nothing

Clearly, the 3rd option is the most expensive, and the 4th is the cheapest,
although the 1st is also equally cheap.

See, if each PC has 1 network card (wired ethernet), and you connect them to
a hub/switch, that creates a closed network. Now, you have this cable modem
with it's ethernet end dangling out looking for some jack to plug up into
and there aren't any. You can't use a switch/hub's uplink port to run the
cable modem from, I've tried it, it doesn't work.
Anyways, I think I have found the solution. Good! Now go away! Make your friend's life miserable. Most would look to make life simple. You?...

I think this comment is complete unncessary and outright rude.

I demand satisfaction.

I challenge you to a duel!! [bang, bang, ahhhhh!!!!]
-- Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <SGpKa.17133$Bg.9739@rwcrnsc54>, no@spam.please
says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message Which is incomplete and *wrong*. Keith, you have wandered off the trail....

For answering your sorry ungrateful ass, I guess I have!
I did not suggest it was complete, but it is a direct quote.

So you haven't a clue what you're doing and you lash out at
others who you hope will help you?
Now, show me anything that defines traditional network as wireless as one person suggested. I never suggested a wireless connection, nut! Jees, you have a problem with people trying to *HELP* your sorry ass! Keith, again, I said "as one person suggested" Nowhere in those words did I say "Keith R. Williams has suggested I use a wireless connection".

So trim your damned articles, twit! There's a difference here, and you have to be very sure of what you are reading before you blast someone.

No, you're a little child hoping for a magic bullet and refuse to
listen to your fairy god-mother. You've been told the answer, so
just go do it!
And I quote myself again: Wondering if anybody here has got the firewire networking to work in W2K by some chance. And if so, what they did. That means I am looking to find a way to get the firewire network working in Windows 2000. GO figure. You're trying to "help" someone by doing something *SILLY*. Like I say directly below this, I did say "Any other suggestions?" I can't argue with myself.

You'd be silly to argue with someone so silly.
You didn't actually help, well, no, you did say he should get a switch. Unfortuantley for that to work, he would need a 2nd network card.

NO! Both computers have a Ethernet card. A switch (or hub) will
hook them to the upstream widget.
He already bought a crossover cable

Bad choice!
so he can link the two together, but then he gets 10Mbps and no internet. The switch would put him in the same position, except with 100Mbps.

Well, dullard, he does need access to the the network, in *ANY*
case. If he has access to the network, a switch or hub will
split that connection into however many systems he chooses. Now
if he has no access to the Ethernet, you aren't helping him in
any way.
True, after that I did say "Any other suggestions?" However, if I was trying to pursue this it probably means that I am not seeking to have my friend buy a router. While this may be a little unclear for some, Yosuf got it right on the mark. NO *router* is needed, though you still don't specify the problem succinctly. A switch or hub might just work. A router may be overkill. Well, there are 4 options: 1 - Get the router from office, to do this he would need to get the DSL working there properly

Wow! That's hard. It's ETHERNET! The router has all the
intelligence your idiot friend (and you) need.
2 - Use a crossover cable and a 2nd network card, need to get 2nd net card

Nonsense! Bad solution.
3 - Use a switch/hub and a 2nd network card, need to get 2nd net card and switch/hub

No "second network card" needed. The switch/hub plugs into each
computer and the ethernet (from the router). ...all done.
4 - Use firewire network, need nothing

....other than someone above an idiot to configure the bastard
system. Take a look at option 3 again. You'll find that it's
trivial (and does *not* need more ethernet ports). Clearly, the 3rd option is the most expensive, and the 4th is the cheapest, although the 1st is also equally cheap.

Hogwash.
See, if each PC has 1 network card (wired ethernet), and you connect them to a hub/switch, that creates a closed network. Now, you have this cable modem with it's ethernet end dangling out looking for some jack to plug up into and there aren't any. You can't use a switch/hub's uplink port to run the cable modem from, I've tried it, it doesn't work.

Then may I suggest that you're an incompetent fool! It's not
hard to do these things. The tools are *DESIGNED* to do exactly
what you cannot make work. Now, exactly who is responsible for
not getting the obvious to work? Anyways, I think I have found the solution. Good! Now go away! Make your friend's life miserable. Most would look to make life simple. You?... I think this comment is complete unncessary and outright rude.

Yes it is. Idiots asking stupid questions, then insulting those
who take time to answer *deserve* rude responses.
I demand satisfaction.

Like a child...
I challenge you to a duel!! [bang, bang, ahhhhh!!!!]

I don't think you want to go there, twit.

--
Keith

[Anonymous Joe]

Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat.

Now, listen you dumb fuck:

A pole outside of house X has cable service.
A cable line is run from the pole outside house X into house X.
From the entry point of house X, the cable line proceeds to enter a room
inside house X, room Y.
Inside room Y, the cable line connects to cable modem Z.
From cable modem Z, the output is an RJ45 10Mbps Ethernet connection, which
will run along an ethernet cable called cable A.
From cable A, it goes directly into the desktop PC, PC A.
Now, the Internet access is only on PC A.
The laptop, PC B, needs Internet access.

Now, here are the connections from each PC:

PC A:
(1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps RJ45
(4) Firewire 400Mbps
(2) 9-pin Serial
(1) LPT port

PC B:
(1) Dial-up 56k Modem RJ11
(1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps
(1) Firewire 400Mbps
(1) 9-pin Serial
(1) LPT port

Now, to be practical, you have to eliminate the Serial and LPT ports, they
are far too slow to be practical.

Secondly, to use the modem he would need to carry not just the cable bill
for his house, as well as the DSL bill from his office, but a third dial-up
bill. This is completly retarded, and far too expensive. Those free
services are utter crap, and even to suggest the use of dial-up also leaves
no option to use network connectivity which only helps to further retard
this problem.

Now, we've got it down to the point where each PC, PC A & PC B, have only
ONE WIRED RJ45 Ethernet 10/100Mbps connection, and they have atleast 1
Firewire IEEE1394(a) 400Mbps connection.

Well, since the Ethernet on PC A is being used to connect to Internet, now
we only have the Firewire connections that can be used.

So, Keith, since you are so god damn smart, tell me how I can possibly
connect these two computers with the Ethernet given the fact that there is
no router present. Remember, not only do the two PCs have to share the
connection, they also have to connect to each other thus creating a LAN with
cable modem access.

If anybody else wants to point out to Keith he is a flaming idiot, feel
free.

[Alexander Grigoriev]

You can also put another Ethernet card into your Win2K PC. One goes to your
Internet connection, another connects to your laptop.

"Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
news:xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat. Now, listen you dumb fuck: A pole outside of house X has cable service. A cable line is run from the pole outside house X into house X. From the entry point of house X, the cable line proceeds to enter a room inside house X, room Y. Inside room Y, the cable line connects to cable modem Z. From cable modem Z, the output is an RJ45 10Mbps Ethernet connection,
which will run along an ethernet cable called cable A. From cable A, it goes directly into the desktop PC, PC A. Now, the Internet access is only on PC A. The laptop, PC B, needs Internet access. Now, here are the connections from each PC: PC A: (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps RJ45 (4) Firewire 400Mbps (2) 9-pin Serial (1) LPT port PC B: (1) Dial-up 56k Modem RJ11 (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps (1) Firewire 400Mbps (1) 9-pin Serial (1) LPT port Now, to be practical, you have to eliminate the Serial and LPT ports, they are far too slow to be practical. Secondly, to use the modem he would need to carry not just the cable bill for his house, as well as the DSL bill from his office, but a third
dial-up bill. This is completly retarded, and far too expensive. Those free services are utter crap, and even to suggest the use of dial-up also
leaves no option to use network connectivity which only helps to further retard this problem. Now, we've got it down to the point where each PC, PC A & PC B, have only ONE WIRED RJ45 Ethernet 10/100Mbps connection, and they have atleast 1 Firewire IEEE1394(a) 400Mbps connection. Well, since the Ethernet on PC A is being used to connect to Internet, now we only have the Firewire connections that can be used. So, Keith, since you are so god damn smart, tell me how I can possibly connect these two computers with the Ethernet given the fact that there is no router present. Remember, not only do the two PCs have to share the connection, they also have to connect to each other thus creating a LAN
with cable modem access. If anybody else wants to point out to Keith he is a flaming idiot, feel free.

[jack]

"Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
news:xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
: Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat.
:
: Now, listen you dumb fuck:

No, you listen lame ass. What's that sound? That's right you idiot,
ker-PLONK!

J.

[Anonymous Joe]

Thank you :)

Keith seems to think I can do it *WITHOUT* adding a 2nd card, I was trying
to prove how wrong he is....

"Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xiQKa.14566$C83.1378305@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... You can also put another Ethernet card into your Win2K PC. One goes to
your Internet connection, another connects to your laptop. "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message news:xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat. Now, listen you dumb fuck: A pole outside of house X has cable service. A cable line is run from the pole outside house X into house X. From the entry point of house X, the cable line proceeds to enter a room inside house X, room Y. Inside room Y, the cable line connects to cable modem Z. From cable modem Z, the output is an RJ45 10Mbps Ethernet connection, which will run along an ethernet cable called cable A. From cable A, it goes directly into the desktop PC, PC A. Now, the Internet access is only on PC A. The laptop, PC B, needs Internet access. Now, here are the connections from each PC: PC A: (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps RJ45 (4) Firewire 400Mbps (2) 9-pin Serial (1) LPT port PC B: (1) Dial-up 56k Modem RJ11 (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps (1) Firewire 400Mbps (1) 9-pin Serial (1) LPT port Now, to be practical, you have to eliminate the Serial and LPT ports,
they are far too slow to be practical. Secondly, to use the modem he would need to carry not just the cable
bill for his house, as well as the DSL bill from his office, but a third dial-up bill. This is completly retarded, and far too expensive. Those free services are utter crap, and even to suggest the use of dial-up also leaves no option to use network connectivity which only helps to further retard this problem. Now, we've got it down to the point where each PC, PC A & PC B, have
only ONE WIRED RJ45 Ethernet 10/100Mbps connection, and they have atleast 1 Firewire IEEE1394(a) 400Mbps connection. Well, since the Ethernet on PC A is being used to connect to Internet,
now we only have the Firewire connections that can be used. So, Keith, since you are so god damn smart, tell me how I can possibly connect these two computers with the Ethernet given the fact that there
is no router present. Remember, not only do the two PCs have to share the connection, they also have to connect to each other thus creating a LAN with cable modem access. If anybody else wants to point out to Keith he is a flaming idiot, feel free.

[Anonymous Joe]

"jack" <OJLCXWQFHEQL@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:bdgu5v$t32cr$1@ID-127331.news.dfncis.de... "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message news:xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... : Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat. : : Now, listen you dumb fuck: No, you listen lame ass. What's that sound? That's right you idiot, ker-PLONK! J.

Jack you jew.
Fuck you.
Plonk plonk.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
no@spam.please says... Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat. Now, listen you dumb fuck:

I'm a DF? You're the one asking for help. We've given you the
answer, yet you're too *soopid* to see it. A pole outside of house X has cable service. A cable line is run from the pole outside house X into house X. From the entry point of house X, the cable line proceeds to enter a room inside house X, room Y. Inside room Y, the cable line connects to cable modem Z. From cable modem Z, the output is an RJ45 10Mbps Ethernet connection, which will run along an ethernet cable called cable A. From cable A, it goes directly into the desktop PC, PC A. Now, the Internet access is only on PC A. The laptop, PC B, needs Internet access.

You are the fool, and I have *no* idea why I bother with a putz
like you. Put a damned switch or hub between "cable A" and "PC
A" Connect another port to "PC B" and you're all done!

Good grief fool! Simple networking is *not* complicated anymore!
Now, here are the connections from each PC: PC A: (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps RJ45

All you need on 'A'! PC B: (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps

All you need on 'B'!

Now all you need is a cheap hub or switch, 'tard.
Now, to be practical, you have to eliminate the Serial and LPT ports, they are far too slow to be practical.

Irrelevant. Buy a switch or hub. Do things the *right* way for
once in your short and insignificant little life.

Your sorry ass obviously doesn't have a clue.
Secondly, to use the modem he would need to carry not just the cable bill for his house, as well as the DSL bill from his office, but a third dial-up bill. This is completly retarded, and far too expensive. Those free services are utter crap, and even to suggest the use of dial-up also leaves no option to use network connectivity which only helps to further retard this problem.

Where did I say anything about a modem you little ungrateful
little twit? Now, we've got it down to the point where each PC, PC A & PC B, have only ONE WIRED RJ45 Ethernet 10/100Mbps connection, and they have atleast 1 Firewire IEEE1394(a) 400Mbps connection.

Use a hub or switch, idiot! Good grief, how many times do you
need to be told the obvious?
Well, since the Ethernet on PC A is being used to connect to Internet, now we only have the Firewire connections that can be used.

Wrong! You're an idiot, though this is nothing new.
So, Keith, since you are so god damn smart, tell me how I can possibly connect these two computers with the Ethernet given the fact that there is no router present. Remember, not only do the two PCs have to share the connection, they also have to connect to each other thus creating a LAN with cable modem access.

Have you ever heard of a switch or a hub? Even though *I* told
you about these wondrous widgets, I'm sure you missed the
relevance of such to your little miserable life and the poor
schmuck you're "advising". If anybody else wants to point out to Keith he is a flaming idiot, feel free.

I don't think that's going to happen. You'd better look in a
mirror and then slink away into another newsgroup right about
now.

Perhaps you'd like to learn a *little* about networking? ...not
that the topic belongs in this group at all.


--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <zk4La.40219$nG.37071@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
no@spam.please says... "jack" <OJLCXWQFHEQL@spammotel.com> wrote in message news:bdgu5v$t32cr$1@ID-127331.news.dfncis.de... "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message news:xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... : Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat. : : Now, listen you dumb fuck: No, you listen lame ass. What's that sound? That's right you idiot, ker-PLONK! J. Jack you jew.

That comment speaks "highly" of your mother.
Fuck you.

Again...
Plonk plonk.

Wow!

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <6k4La.37009$Bg.18272@rwcrnsc54>, no@spam.please
says... Thank you :) Keith seems to think I can do it *WITHOUT* adding a 2nd card, I was trying to prove how wrong he is....

I *know* so. You obviously know *NOTHING*.

What a maroon!

--
Keith

[chrisv]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:21:38 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please>
wrote:
Thank you :)Keith seems to think I can do it *WITHOUT* adding a 2nd card, I was tryingto prove how wrong he is....

The idiotic top posters are in agreement! How can anyone challenge
them?

"Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:xiQKa.14566$C83.1378305@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... You can also put another Ethernet card into your Win2K PC. One goes toyour Internet connection, another connects to your laptop.

[Anonymous Joe]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1966c6e92b6a499498a4d8@enews.newsguy.com... In article <6k4La.37009$Bg.18272@rwcrnsc54>, no@spam.please says... Thank you :) Keith seems to think I can do it *WITHOUT* adding a 2nd card, I was
trying to prove how wrong he is.... I *know* so. You obviously know *NOTHING*. What a maroon! -- Keith

OK, Keith.

I conceed, how can I do this with just the existing switch he has, the two
PCs with wired Ethernet and maintain the cable connection?

[Anonymous Joe]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1966c6e92b6a499498a4d8@enews.newsguy.co... In article <6k4La.37009$Bg.18272@rwcrnsc54>, no@spam.please says... Thank you :) Keith seems to think I can do it *WITHOUT* adding a 2nd card, I was
trying to prove how wrong he is.... I *know* so. You obviously know *NOTHING*. What a maroon! -- Keith

Hey, Keithy boy, don't tell me that.

I know that my dick is bigger than yours and you are actually John Corse.

Now, if you would go back to sucking Clinton's dick, leave the fuck off this
group you cunt licking jewish bastard.

[CLF]

Keith, I might be new to this group, but I don't think you are being fair to
Anonymous Joe.

Yeah, he seems like a real idiot with a good mother and all, but he is
right.

You can't network 2 PCs with a cable connection with just a switch. You end
up having 3 cables to 2 ports, and that doesn't work very well.

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1966c6564b1a960998a4d6@enews.newsguy.com... In article <xTJKa.27819$e26.17078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, no@spam.please says... Keith, words cannot express your ignorance you childish little twat. Now, listen you dumb fuck: I'm a DF? You're the one asking for help. We've given you the answer, yet you're too *soopid* to see it. A pole outside of house X has cable service. A cable line is run from the pole outside house X into house X. From the entry point of house X, the cable line proceeds to enter a room inside house X, room Y. Inside room Y, the cable line connects to cable modem Z. From cable modem Z, the output is an RJ45 10Mbps Ethernet connection,
which will run along an ethernet cable called cable A. From cable A, it goes directly into the desktop PC, PC A. Now, the Internet access is only on PC A. The laptop, PC B, needs Internet access. You are the fool, and I have *no* idea why I bother with a putz like you. Put a damned switch or hub between "cable A" and "PC A" Connect another port to "PC B" and you're all done! Good grief fool! Simple networking is *not* complicated anymore! Now, here are the connections from each PC: PC A: (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps RJ45 All you need on 'A'! PC B: (1) Ethernet card 10/100Mbps All you need on 'B'! Now all you need is a cheap hub or switch, 'tard. Now, to be practical, you have to eliminate the Serial and LPT ports,
they are far too slow to be practical. Irrelevant. Buy a switch or hub. Do things the *right* way for once in your short and insignificant little life. Your sorry ass obviously doesn't have a clue. Secondly, to use the modem he would need to carry not just the cable
bill for his house, as well as the DSL bill from his office, but a third
dial-up bill. This is completly retarded, and far too expensive. Those free services are utter crap, and even to suggest the use of dial-up also
leaves no option to use network connectivity which only helps to further retard this problem. Where did I say anything about a modem you little ungrateful little twit? Now, we've got it down to the point where each PC, PC A & PC B, have
only ONE WIRED RJ45 Ethernet 10/100Mbps connection, and they have atleast 1 Firewire IEEE1394(a) 400Mbps connection. Use a hub or switch, idiot! Good grief, how many times do you need to be told the obvious? Well, since the Ethernet on PC A is being used to connect to Internet,
now we only have the Firewire connections that can be used. Wrong! You're an idiot, though this is nothing new. So, Keith, since you are so god damn smart, tell me how I can possibly connect these two computers with the Ethernet given the fact that there
is no router present. Remember, not only do the two PCs have to share the connection, they also have to connect to each other thus creating a LAN
with cable modem access. Have you ever heard of a switch or a hub? Even though *I* told you about these wondrous widgets, I'm sure you missed the relevance of such to your little miserable life and the poor schmuck you're "advising". If anybody else wants to point out to Keith he is a flaming idiot, feel free. I don't think that's going to happen. You'd better look in a mirror and then slink away into another newsgroup right about now. Perhaps you'd like to learn a *little* about networking? ...not that the topic belongs in this group at all. -- Keith

[Jeff McWilliams]

In article <UtpMa.11920$fG.5914@sccrnsc01>, CLF wrote: Yes, I know what a switch is, I had one for a while. What I did was plugged 2 Ethernet cards into 1 PC, then hooked up my DSL (at the time) to 1 of the cards. With the other, I attached that to the switch, giving me 100Mbps access to the LAN instead of the 10Mbps achieved with a hub, and then using Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) I was able to give the LAN users internet access, but I needed 2 cards. What I would have here is one network cable from the cable modem, as I think it is better than DSL, atleast for the price, but then I have a network cable coming from each PC, that makes 3 cables total. But, each PC has 1 port, so that's 2 ports total. I already know that if I want to share my Internet from the cable modem to a LAN, I need a router, a switch can't accept the DHCP calls and distribute the connection at all, something a router can do quite easily. Just my 2 cents, maybe Keith can toss some change in...

Alghouth I haven't bothered to read the entire of what's quickly becoming a
flame-fest, I'd agree with what CLF recently wrote.
I have cablemodem access here through Comcast.
My Motorola Surfboard cablemodem won't hand out more than one address
via DHCP to the one or more PC's that may be connected to the ethernet port
on the cablemodem for the reasons that CLF stated.

In my case, I have an old 133MHz Pentium PC that boots off of a Compact Flash
card to a Linux OS that operates as my router/firewall.
It's physically configured as CLF describes above. It has two network
cards in it. One cable connects the
cablemodem to my Linux router. Another cable connects my Linux router
to a 10/100 hub that I bought back when switches were still $200 or more.
From the hub I have
three desktops and between 0 and 3 laptops that can occupy my home LAN.

The part of Linux that lets more than one PC "Share" the one unique IP address
your ISP is willing to provide you is called Net Address Translation or
NAT. Older Linux kernels used to call it IP Masquerading.

Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing does the same thing, except the
PC doing the sharing is still exposed to the Internet unless a
software firewall program is also installed on the system.

People typically build a private LAN behind their firewall/router
using a 192.168.x.x subnet. Google for RFC1918 if you're curious
why this is often used.

The many Linksys, Netgear, SMC, etc. cable/DSL routers on the market do the
same thing my Linux firewall/router or MS Internet Connection Sharing does,
except its packet filtering firewall rules are somewhat simplistic compared
to what IPCHAINS/IPTABLES on Linux or ipfw on *BSD can do.

Jeff

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <XRnMa.77659$R73.10183@sccrnsc04>, no@spam.please
says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1966c6e92b6a499498a4d8@enews.newsguy.co... In article <6k4La.37009$Bg.18272@rwcrnsc54>, no@spam.please says... Thank you :) Keith seems to think I can do it *WITHOUT* adding a 2nd card, I was trying to prove how wrong he is.... I *know* so. You obviously know *NOTHING*. What a maroon! -- Keith Hey, Keithy boy, don't tell me that.

Heh!
I know that my dick is bigger than yours

Really? Do you often peek over the stalls?
and you are actually John Corse.

You are just *so* silly you're cute! There are a few here that
will testify differently. DeanK knows both. Now, if you would go back to sucking Clinton's dick, leave the fuck off this group you cunt licking jewish bastard.

Wow! You do have a problem somewhere in your life!

Some people are really *DULLARDS*. You sir, take the top candle
on the dullard cake! Yikes!

--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3f021f17.49469750@news.tellurian.com>, fammacd=!
SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says... On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:29:52 GMT, "CLF" <i@hate.spam> wrote:Keith, I might be new to this group, but I don't think you are being fair toAnonymous Joe.Yeah, he seems like a real idiot with a good mother and all, but he isright.You can't network 2 PCs with a cable connection with just a switch. You endup having 3 cables to 2 ports, and that doesn't work very well. Keith means a network "switch" - a hub type device which has switched ports instead of ethernet sharing.

Indeed. Good grief! I didn't think this was that complicated in
2003!
A hub would work as well but the price of switches is so low the hubs are almost obsolete. The only possible fly I see in the "ointment" for that is that many DSL router/modems do not work with regular IP protocol but use PoE; even those that do assign an IP address (usually NAT based) will only assign one IP address.

....but the OP *HAS* a *ROUTER* in his (or his pal's) father's
office. As long as the router is accessible, who cares? If it's
not, then the system is even more trivial (it won't work).
It's the ISP's way of getting you to pay more for a multi-computer connection... for which they supply a router/modem which includes a built-in 4- or 8-port hub.

The OP's "father" has a router at the head-end. The rest is
simple! He's simply trolling.

If he doesn't want help, screw him! If he does, well he hasn't
shown any interest in asking for help. He's simply shown an
intolerance for anyone's knowledge. In either case, screw him.

--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <bdv4lu$bsl$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, foo@bar.invalid
says... Jeff McWilliams <Jeff.McWilliams@no.clanspammcwilliams.org> wrote: In article <UtpMa.11920$fG.5914@sccrnsc01>, CLF wrote: Yes, I know what a switch is, I had one for a while. What I did was plugged 2 Ethernet cards into 1 PC, then hooked up my DSL (at the time) to 1 of the cards. With the other, I attached that to the switch, giving me 100Mbps access to the LAN instead of the 10Mbps achieved with a hub, and then using Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) I was able to give the LAN users internet access, but I needed 2 cards. What I would have here is one network cable from the cable modem, as I think it is better than DSL, atleast for the price, but then I have a network cable coming from each PC, that makes 3 cables total. But, each PC has 1 port, so that's 2 ports total. I already know that if I want to share my Internet from the cable modem to a LAN, I need a router, a switch can't accept the DHCP calls and distribute the connection at all, something a router can do quite easily. Just my 2 cents, maybe Keith can toss some change in... Alghouth I haven't bothered to read the entire of what's quickly becoming a flame-fest, I'd agree with what CLF recently wrote. I have cablemodem access here through Comcast. My Motorola Surfboard cablemodem won't hand out more than one address via DHCP to the one or more PC's that may be connected to the ethernet port on the cablemodem for the reasons that CLF stated. The many Linksys, Netgear, SMC, etc. cable/DSL routers on the market do the same thing my Linux firewall/router or MS Internet Connection Sharing does, except its packet filtering firewall rules are somewhat simplistic compared to what IPCHAINS/IPTABLES on Linux or ipfw on *BSD can do. This thread is quickly reaching from the sublime to the rediculous. The technical definitions of a switch and routers are correct, and perhaps Keith erred in that he used the term "switch" a bit too loosely and expected the audiance to understand that he meant a "router".

No, I really meant an Ethernet switch (a.k.a. a "switching hub").
He already has a router in the father's office. From what I
could understand of the blather, he only had one cable from the
router and wanted to attach two systems. That one cable could be
split with a hub or a switch. A full router is not needed in this
application.

--
Keith

[Scott Alfter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <AXnMa.10522$Xm3.2150@sccrnsc02>, CLF <i@hate.spam> top-posted
(grr):You can't network 2 PCs with a cable connection with just a switch. You endup having 3 cables to 2 ports, and that doesn't work very well.

Of course you can...plug each computer and the cable modem into the switch.
If you weren't assigned static IPs, let each computer use DHCP to grab IP
addresses from your service provider.

(I understand that some cable-modem systems use PPPoE. Depending on how
many hosts your cable company will allow to connect, the above may or may
not work. PPPoE sucks, though, so I won't go further into it here. PPP is
for dial-up connections and shouldn't be forced on broadband users.)

_/_ Scott Alfter
/ v \ salfter@salfter.dyndns.org
(IIGS( http://alfter.us Top-posting!
\_^_/ pkill -9 /bin/laden >What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE/A1XjVgTKos01OwkRAri+AKCJiUQFsjYCmApNp9oxAEF5QZK3BQCgkYYV
VBlwHyCOhEpN039V6ZLCfGI=
=yn+t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <uPKMa.1445$I8.837@rwcrnsc53>, nospam@yahooo.com
says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.196c1078aed0547b98a503@enews.newsguy.com... In article <3f021f17.49469750@news.tellurian.com>, fammacd=! SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says... On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:29:52 GMT, "CLF" <i@hate.spam> wrote: >Keith, I might be new to this group, but I don't think you are being fair to >Anonymous Joe. > >Yeah, he seems like a real idiot with a good mother and all, but he is >right. > >You can't network 2 PCs with a cable connection with just a switch. You end >up having 3 cables to 2 ports, and that doesn't work very well. Keith means a network "switch" - a hub type device which has switched ports instead of ethernet sharing. Indeed. Good grief! I didn't think this was that complicated in 2003! A hub would work as well but the price of switches is so low the hubs are almost obsolete. The only possible fly I see in the "ointment" for that is that many DSL router/modems do not work with regular IP protocol but use PoE; even those that do assign an IP address (usually NAT based) will only assign one IP address. ...but the OP *HAS* a *ROUTER* in his (or his pal's) father's office. As long as the router is accessible, who cares? If it's not, then the system is even more trivial (it won't work). It's the ISP's way of getting you to pay more for a multi-computer connection... for which they supply a router/modem which includes a built-in 4- or 8-port hub. The OP's "father" has a router at the head-end. The rest is simple! He's simply trolling. If he doesn't want help, screw him! If he does, well he hasn't shown any interest in asking for help. He's simply shown an intolerance for anyone's knowledge. In either case, screw him. -- Keith I think you've missundestood this "Joe" fella. After reading all the way into this thing, I believe he has a router at an office, but nothing at the house.

Perhaps, but he really hasn't been straight with us. I
interpreted his mumbo-jumbo as it was a kid-friend he was trying
to help and that his friend's father had a DSL modem in his
office. The kid was trying to network his friend's to computers
to a single line to his father's office. In what other
circumstance would you even think about IP over FireWire?
The router is *not* usable at this point. So, even if a switch was used, it has nothing to attach to (no router from which to split the line out, I think you were assuming he has a router in the house and it is a 1-port router). Perhaps that clears up everything...?

No, without an Internet connection how does any of this make
sense? The only sense I could squeeze out of this nonsense was
that he has one cable feed to the router in his daddy's office
and that that router could not be moved (daddy needs even more
control than the router). He was looking for a way to rout
through a desktop to a laptop. Note that both systems had a
100Base-T connection and he was looking to connect to an existing
network!

--
Keith

[The little lost angel]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:13:25 +0000 (UTC), David Wang <foo@bar.invalid>
wrote:His friend does have a router, but it's "at his father's office".Then some other blathering about DSL at the father's place, somethingabout not having CD's, and it *seems* that he did not want to movethat router back into the friend's house.So his friend's problem may stil best be solved by the cheaprouter, not by a switch that could have presumably been attachedto the router that is sitting at the father's office.

Actually I've been trying to follow this thread, but seems like my
news server isn't picking up everything, making it even more bizarre
why on earth did Keith and Joe get into the flaming exchange :D

From my end, it looks as if he didn't have a router and just had two
systems with NIC. So it made sense to me just to grab a switch/router
to use the internet.

Though I don't know why a router is needed but a cheapo switch or even
a hub should work. At least it did when I was using a 10Mbps hub to
connect 3 computers and an ethernet ADSL PPP modem.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[CLF]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:3f038f6a.667486424@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:13:25 +0000 (UTC), David Wang <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:His friend does have a router, but it's "at his father's office".Then some other blathering about DSL at the father's place, somethingabout not having CD's, and it *seems* that he did not want to movethat router back into the friend's house.So his friend's problem may stil best be solved by the cheaprouter, not by a switch that could have presumably been attachedto the router that is sitting at the father's office. Actually I've been trying to follow this thread, but seems like my news server isn't picking up everything, making it even more bizarre why on earth did Keith and Joe get into the flaming exchange :D From my end, it looks as if he didn't have a router and just had two systems with NIC. So it made sense to me just to grab a switch/router to use the internet. Though I don't know why a router is needed but a cheapo switch or even a hub should work. At least it did when I was using a 10Mbps hub to connect 3 computers and an ethernet ADSL PPP modem. -- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
:) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

No, no, no!!

Ok, L.Angel, you are right that the router and 2 PCs are in different
buildings, and the router cannot be moved.

So, basically you can completly exlcude the fact there was a router to begin
with.

You still end up with having a cable modem, with only 1 IP, and 2 PCs, each
with ONE Ethernet port.

For this you NEED a router, a switch will not let either PC use the
internet, but only setup a LAN. You CANNOT plug the cable modem's Ethernet
cable into the switch, along with the 2 other PCs and get the internt to
work.

BTW, CLF, u suck.

[CLF]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:3f038f6a.667486424@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:13:25 +0000 (UTC), David Wang <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:His friend does have a router, but it's "at his father's office".Then some other blathering about DSL at the father's place, somethingabout not having CD's, and it *seems* that he did not want to movethat router back into the friend's house.So his friend's problem may stil best be solved by the cheaprouter, not by a switch that could have presumably been attachedto the router that is sitting at the father's office. Actually I've been trying to follow this thread, but seems like my news server isn't picking up everything, making it even more bizarre why on earth did Keith and Joe get into the flaming exchange :D From my end, it looks as if he didn't have a router and just had two systems with NIC. So it made sense to me just to grab a switch/router to use the internet. Though I don't know why a router is needed but a cheapo switch or even a hub should work. At least it did when I was using a 10Mbps hub to connect 3 computers and an ethernet ADSL PPP modem. -- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
:) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

No, no, no!!

Yes, you are right, the router is in a DIFFERENT BUILDING, and I don't feel
like string Ethernet cable across two towns (VPN wouldn't be a valid
solution to avoid that), so it is just like having 2 PCs both having ONE
Ethernet and ONE Firewire port.

But, there would also be a 3rd Ethernet cable from the cable modem, which
means a simple 10Mbps crossover doesnt work, and a switch doesnt work
either.

[CLF]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:3f04afc8.741308475@news.pacific.net.sg... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:08:43 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote:Yes, you are right, the router is in a DIFFERENT BUILDING, and I don't
feellike string Ethernet cable across two towns (VPN wouldn't be a validsolution to avoid that), so it is just like having 2 PCs both having ONEEthernet and ONE Firewire port.But, there would also be a 3rd Ethernet cable from the cable modem, whichmeans a simple 10Mbps crossover doesnt work, and a switch doesnt workeither. So why wouldn't a switch work???? Cable Modem -> Hub/Switch Desktop with NAT -> Hub/Switch Laptop -> Hub/Switch Problem solved with a cheap hub/switch and an Ethernet cable. -- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
:) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

I see what you mean, however it won't work.

As soon as you plug the Cable Modem's Ethernet cable into a LAN port (the
router's WAN port and a NIC are the ONLY things that work properly), the
hub/switch doesn't know what to do with it.

So, in effect, I would've created a nice little LAN....

Which is why the router would be needed, but that's not available, or
firewire networking would be needed:

Cable Modem -> Desktop NIC
Desktop -> Laptop Firewire

Use Firenet (which is really all I needed for the original post, which might
have well of been 2 weeks ago by now) to get the PCs to talk to each other
over IP through the firewire (the cable is in hand, so even though a cable
may cost more than a switch or hub, it was free and thus cost less), then
use ICS to get the Desktop to assign the Laptop's IP address via DHCP.

Simple, simple.

Maybe you guys are paying an extra $9.95 for a 2nd IP address, but you can
do it for free with a router. Maybe you don't have Comcast/AT&T Cable and
they let you do something like that, but as soon as you plug the
Comcast/AT&T cable internet into a switch it dies.

[Anonymous Joe]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:3f04afc8.741308475@news.pacific.net.sg... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:08:43 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote:Yes, you are right, the router is in a DIFFERENT BUILDING, and I don't
feellike string Ethernet cable across two towns (VPN wouldn't be a validsolution to avoid that), so it is just like having 2 PCs both having ONEEthernet and ONE Firewire port.But, there would also be a 3rd Ethernet cable from the cable modem, whichmeans a simple 10Mbps crossover doesnt work, and a switch doesnt workeither. So why wouldn't a switch work???? Cable Modem -> Hub/Switch Desktop with NAT -> Hub/Switch Laptop -> Hub/Switch Problem solved with a cheap hub/switch and an Ethernet cable. -- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
:) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

I see what you mean, however it won't work.

As soon as you plug the Cable Modem's Ethernet cable into a LAN port (the
router's WAN port and a NIC are the ONLY things that work properly), the
hub/switch doesn't know what to do with it.

So, in effect, I would've created a nice little LAN....

Which is why the router would be needed, but that's not available, or
firewire networking would be needed:

Cable Modem -> Desktop NIC
Desktop -> Laptop Firewire

Use Firenet (which is really all I needed for the original post, which might
have well of been 2 weeks ago by now) to get the PCs to talk to each other
over IP through the firewire (the cable is in hand, so even though a cable
may cost more than a switch or hub, it was free and thus cost less), then
use ICS to get the Desktop to assign the Laptop's IP address via DHCP.

Simple, simple.

Maybe you guys are paying an extra $9.95 for a 2nd IP address, but you can
do it for free with a router. Maybe you don't have Comcast/AT&T Cable and
they let you do something like that, but as soon as you plug the
Comcast/AT&T cable internet into a switch it dies.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <wF2Na.29813$926.2274@sccrnsc03>, no@spam.please
says... "The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in message news:3f04afc8.741308475@news.pacific.net.sg... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:08:43 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote:Yes, you are right, the router is in a DIFFERENT BUILDING, and I don't feellike string Ethernet cable across two towns (VPN wouldn't be a validsolution to avoid that), so it is just like having 2 PCs both having ONEEthernet and ONE Firewire port.But, there would also be a 3rd Ethernet cable from the cable modem, whichmeans a simple 10Mbps crossover doesnt work, and a switch doesnt workeither. So why wouldn't a switch work???? Cable Modem -> Hub/Switch Desktop with NAT -> Hub/Switch Laptop -> Hub/Switch Problem solved with a cheap hub/switch and an Ethernet cable. -- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage. I see what you mean, however it won't work.

Why?
As soon as you plug the Cable Modem's Ethernet cable into a LAN port (the router's WAN port and a NIC are the ONLY things that work properly), the hub/switch doesn't know what to do with it.

Nonsense. I have a cable modem with a router connected to its
Ethernet port. The "router" has a switch at the back end to deal
with the computers. These are expandable by any hub/switch
solution you wish!
So, in effect, I would've created a nice little LAN....

Exactly, and the router will *route* your new subnet packets to
the big *I*. That's its job!
Which is why the router would be needed, but that's not available, or firewire networking would be needed: Cable Modem -> Desktop NIC Desktop -> Laptop Firewire

Take your damned cable modem and put a *ROUTER* inbetween like
millions of other people do! Sheesh, this is not complicated. Use Firenet (which is really all I needed for the original post, which might have well of been 2 weeks ago by now) to get the PCs to talk to each other over IP through the firewire (the cable is in hand, so even though a cable may cost more than a switch or hub, it was free and thus cost less), then use ICS to get the Desktop to assign the Laptop's IP address via DHCP. Simple, simple.

Then please go away! You're making things far more complicated
than they need be. The next question is security, but we'll
leave that for you to figure out.
Maybe you guys are paying an extra $9.95 for a 2nd IP address,

You're a fool! I've had a cable modem for three years and was
warned "in the most severe terms" not to try to check out another
IP address. Pfft! I only have one computer on the cable
network, the *ROUTER*. Think about it!
but you can do it for free with a router.

Duh?
Maybe you don't have Comcast/AT&T Cable and they let you do something like that, but as soon as you plug the Comcast/AT&T cable internet into a switch it dies.

Fine, but damned *ROUTER*. They're cheap. Then you can take
your silliness to another group! In case you hadn't noticed
..chips is not a networking group.

--
Keith

[jack]

"Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
news:wF2Na.29813$926.2274@sccrnsc03...
<snip all>

Jesus, you are just plain stupid! Wait, what's that? I think your
mommy's calling you....time for your 7:00pm bath, junior. What a lamer.
LOL!

J.

[jack]

"Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
news:OzhNa.102485$R73.11968@sccrnsc04...

<snip all>

Blabbering idiot...

J.

[George Macdonald]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:14:44 GMT, "CLF" <nospam@yahooo.com> wrote:
"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in messagenews:3f021f17.49469750@news.tellurian.com... On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:29:52 GMT, "CLF" <i@hate.spam> wrote:Keith, I might be new to this group, but I don't think you are being fairtoAnonymous Joe.Yeah, he seems like a real idiot with a good mother and all, but he isright.You can't network 2 PCs with a cable connection with just a switch. Youendup having 3 cables to 2 ports, and that doesn't work very well. Keith means a network "switch" - a hub type device which has switchedports instead of ethernet sharing. A hub would work as well but the price of switches is so low the hubs are almost obsolete. The only possible fly I see in the "ointment" for that is that many DSL router/modems do not work with regular IP protocol but use PoE; even those that do assign an IP address (usually NAT based) will only assign one IP address. It's the ISP's way of getting you to pay more for a multi-computer connection...for which they supply a router/modem which includes a built-in 4- or 8-port hub.Yes, I know what a switch is, I had one for a while.What I did was plugged 2 Ethernet cards into 1 PC, then hooked up my DSL (atthe time) to 1 of the cards. With the other, I attached that to the switch,giving me 100Mbps access to the LAN instead of the 10Mbps achieved with ahub, and then using Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) I was ableto give the LAN users internet access, but I needed 2 cards.

There are several ways to do DSL with multiple computers on a LAN. What
you did allows you to cheat IF your ISP's supplied DSL modem/router limits
you to one connection, whether it be through PoE or a single assignable IP
address. Like I said some DSL modems/routers will allow more than one
connection through NAT/DHCP, or even with fixed IP addresses with or
without DHCP. In those cases you just connect the modem/router's Ethernet
port to any spare port on your LAN switch/hub - no need for 2 network cards
or any PC-based NAT.

If the modem/router your ISP gave you does not support more than one IP
address on the LAN, they don't want you to do it... and if you get caught,
which you very likely will, you could have your service cancelled. Look up
the terms of service of your ISP.
What I would have here is one network cable from the cable modem, as I thinkit is better than DSL, atleast for the price, but then I have a networkcable coming from each PC, that makes 3 cables total. But, each PC has 1port, so that's 2 ports total.I already know that if I want to share my Internet from the cable modem to aLAN, I need a router, a switch can't accept the DHCP calls and distributethe connection at all, something a router can do quite easily.

DHCP has nothing to do with what you're trying to do... unless you want to
do it that way or your ISP forces you to do it that way. IOW you can
configure a DSL router with or without DHCP or NAT if you get a block of
fixed IP addresses from your ISP - what we have in our office. I've no
idea what the CATV companies offer in that respect but AFAIK some of them
do not want any business usage, with mutiple computers at all.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[George Macdonald]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:00:00 GMT, salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (Scott Alfter)
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1In article <AXnMa.10522$Xm3.2150@sccrnsc02>, CLF <i@hate.spam> top-posted(grr):You can't network 2 PCs with a cable connection with just a switch. You endup having 3 cables to 2 ports, and that doesn't work very well.Of course you can...plug each computer and the cable modem into the switch.If you weren't assigned static IPs, let each computer use DHCP to grab IPaddresses from your service provider.(I understand that some cable-modem systems use PPPoE. Depending on howmany hosts your cable company will allow to connect, the above may or maynot work. PPPoE sucks, though, so I won't go further into it here. PPP isfor dial-up connections and shouldn't be forced on broadband users.)

The Telco ADSL in most places uses PPPoE. When independent ISPs lease DSL
lines from the Telco to resell, they often supply a DSL modem/router which
hides the PPP. IOW the modem/router does the PPP conversion and handles
any "Login" and appears to the PC as an IP Gateway over Ethernet.

BTW, having experienced two CLEC's DSL - one was flakey, the other went
bust - and the Telco's miserable efforts, I agree that PPPoE sucks but a
good ISP can work around it, with little visible effect to the end user.
AIUI the reason the Telcos are so stuck on PPPoE for ADSL is that it
provides a means for isolation of Internet traffic from the future "other
content" the Telcos have in mind for us... movies, adverts, pay sports etc.
There was quite an uproar in the Pacbell market a couple of years ago when
independent ISPs DSL contracts included a clause which allowed Pacbell to
steal back the bandwidth they'd just leased out for that "content".

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Tony Hill]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:37:22 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:08:43 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <no@spam.please>wrote:Yes, you are right, the router is in a DIFFERENT BUILDING, and I don't feellike string Ethernet cable across two towns (VPN wouldn't be a validsolution to avoid that), so it is just like having 2 PCs both having ONEEthernet and ONE Firewire port.But, there would also be a 3rd Ethernet cable from the cable modem, whichmeans a simple 10Mbps crossover doesnt work, and a switch doesnt workeither.So why wouldn't a switch work????Cable Modem -> Hub/SwitchDesktop with NAT -> Hub/SwitchLaptop -> Hub/SwitchProblem solved with a cheap hub/switch and an Ethernet cable.

It works, but it's a DUMB idea from a security perspective. In that
setup you have no reliable method of determining which traffic is
coming from the local network (the desktop and laptop) and what
traffic is coming from the internet. Also, a lot of software doesn't
support this setup, I pretty certain that Windows ICS doesn't. Linux
IP Masquerading/NAT does, but it's strongly recommended against doing
so.