USING ANOTHER BROADBAND CONNECTION
- Thread starter micky
- Start date
It depends on the type of broadband your friend has and how he has it hooked up to his PC. If he's using a router/modem then it's an easy no brainer, just plug a network cable into his router/modem and into your NIC and set your internet connection to nothing but "auto-detect". 
If it's just broadband straight to his PC it gets tricky. :?
If it's just broadband straight to his PC it gets tricky. :?
Quoted for truth. I damn near gave myself a conniption trying to originally set-up my broadband for use on all my PCs thru an old hub, a $25us DSL/router made it into a 15 minute easy-as-cake walk-thru for me and it hasn't given me a lick of trouble since. (And that was years ago!)DiGuru said:
Even my friends who only have one PC I recomend them getting a router/modem set-up, it just makes life that much easier/better.
yeah, and all 3 boxes with public IPs!MPI said:Damn I love having 5 IPs... Incoming eth. -> Switch -> 3 boxes.
Easy as pie and no hassle with routers(NAT mostly, somewhat concerned about throughput).
Hack-fest!
No need for 99.9% of computers to have a public IP - port forwarding can deal with most anything.
Hackfest... mmmyeah right. If you think a $40 router off the shelf of circuit city is an impregnable wall of infinite security you'll have some nasty surprises in store, I'm afraid... The box better be secured no matter you're behind a cheap-ass NAT router or not. If we're talking a decent SPI-capable fire-wall, well that's another matter.
Furthermore, by far the largest reason for home computers being compromised is trojans and virii(?), not outside attacks.
I hate mucking about with port forwarding also. It's ok when there's just a pop-up in the software f/w when you start some new program/game and just open it up, but do you realise how many family/friends "support" calls I've gotten b/c this and that doesn't work? NAT si teh suck.
Furthermore, by far the largest reason for home computers being compromised is trojans and virii(?), not outside attacks.
I hate mucking about with port forwarding also. It's ok when there's just a pop-up in the software f/w when you start some new program/game and just open it up, but do you realise how many family/friends "support" calls I've gotten b/c this and that doesn't work? NAT si teh suck.
MPI said:
On average, NAT gives better protection than any firewall. And there really is no good or bad implementation of that: either it works, or it doesn't. Only things like port forwarding and virtual servers have different implementations.
Did you ever check the log of a router, say two hours after the connection went live? What do you see?
I hate mucking about with port forwarding also. It's ok when there's just a pop-up in the software f/w when you start some new program/game and just open it up, but do you realise how many family/friends "support" calls I've gotten b/c this and that doesn't work? NAT si teh suck.
Well, yes, all security takes work. If you want to avoid all of that, just turn it all off.
But then again, a router will give less problems, take less time and give better protection, straight out of the box, than any extra network card and Windows Internet sharing. If only because you have to turn off and open up the computer to insert the network card, have to turn on the internet sharing and have the person who owns it promise never to turn that computer off ever again.
In reply to original post:
Two words: Wireless router. Voila! You're done.
Two words: Wireless router. Voila! You're done.
Agreed about the price thing, but if ICS works well out of the box (as I said, sometimes it can be troublesome) you don't have a router to set up for port forwarding, and if the connection isn't permanent, as it seems, it's a lot more convenient to plug the cables on both computers than buying a router. Most modems connect through USB anyway, so chances are you don't even have to buy a network card.DiGuru said:
A router is more convenient in a students flat where everyone has to share the connection independently of having one computer turned on all the time, though. I wouldn't recomend a wireless router for this because transfering files in the LAN is painfully slower.
do you really transfer multi-gig files that often?
Let's just say I strongly disagree on that one. And then I assume that by "any" firewall you mean any software f/w.
NAT gives some security, marginal, but some.
DiGuru said:
Well, I can take my linux box's shorewall logs, since I don't have a router. 99.99% is inept script-kiddie shit, mostly simple FTP password stabs and various IIS attacks.
Only once I've had to clean up a computer that had been comprimised from the outside, and that was 6-7 years ago on a Win98 box without a firewall. However, I have cleaned out plenty that was compromised by trojans(which a NAT router does squat-all about).
Umm... no thank you, I just think I'll go with my software firewalls, they're adequate and convenient.
I have a router/fw AND a software fw. God bless redundancy, I never had a single problem except when I reinstalled Windows without disconnecting the router, where I got a shitload of adware, trojans and such within ~30 mins.
Low ping in games thanks to the SW-fw doesn't really bother me, since I'm not into multiplayer games.
Low ping in games thanks to the SW-fw doesn't really bother me, since I'm not into multiplayer games.
I've got a Linksys WRT54G (W for wirless I believe). The thing works like a charm. Also when I don't want to deal with the routers security features at all, I just place on of my PCs in the Routers DMZone which makes the PC that you place there fully accessible to the internet (and vice-versa). As far as wireless goes, I have a 64Bit WEP on (Thinking about just going to 128 but i'm not to worried) and I have my MAC Filter up. Finally I prevent the SSID from broadcasting.
All and all I would get a Wireless router that has DHCP functions, NAT and WEP-WPA. I also found just found out (like a month or two ago) how to give my PCs static IPs under my router, made my life so much easier
All and all I would get a Wireless router that has DHCP functions, NAT and WEP-WPA. I also found just found out (like a month or two ago) how to give my PCs static IPs under my router, made my life so much easier
No, but when I do and everyone will do something like this eventually, it's a pain, even with 100mbit, nevermind 54 or 11. Add to that security and connection issues (common in cheap wireless routers) and wireless is almost always a bad choice.The Baron said:
It's a personal view, I know, just sharing my opinion.
Try firewire networking. Awesome.t0y said:
With standard 400Mbit FW, I got real-world transfer rates of about 230Mbit/s. Might have been even faster with a faster CPU in the sending computer...I did once, I was really surprised! This was done using my laptop and it was only a desperate try with a DV camera cable after failing to use regular crossover cable (I think the other guy had driver problems with his nic). I also use gigabit with my desktop and a friend's laptop and it's faster than what my hard disk can read! My friend's computer stops responding while trying to keep up.
