 | | From: | Ockerr | | Subject: | D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:11:04 +1300 |
|
|
 | Thanks Guys
Yes I got it wrong, its not a router its a Hub with Ports.
So I have a 16 port Hub with 4 Computers link'd into it for my Home
Networks.
So it looks like I should be able to Take my D_LINK ADSL off my Computer and
Plug it into one of the empty ports of the Hub, Then Plug the Power into it,
Go to The other Computers RUN the Setup disk and the Computers will
recognize the D-LINK as another local Area Connection or as ( D-Link Dial-Up
ppp Connection ) Then configure the Internet Explorer and Outlook Express to
use that as the connection for the Internet. Is it That easy? or am I going
to Stuff it up?
Thanks everyone for the replies
Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
If this works it seems its a easier way out.
|
|
| | From: | Dave - Dave.net.nz | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:38:25 +1300 |
|
|
| Ockerr wrote:
> Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
> Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
> If this works it seems its a easier way out.
Switches get a better throughput generally... for most home users, they
wont notice the difference, but when you start having more than 5 or so
PCs on the network, it begins to impact on the usibility of the network.
Also, the price difference is fuck all these days, it used to be
considerably more.
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 11:20:14 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
[snip]
> Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
> Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
> If this works it seems its a easier way out.
I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's nothing in
your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it will work as a router
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the other. A
router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic places. That's how
traffic from multiple machines gets to the right place and back again. You
do need a router to connect more than one machine to the Internet.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | Collector»NZ | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:33:17 +1300 |
|
|
| Robert Singers said the following on 14/01/2005 11:20 a.m.:
> Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
> [snip]
>
>>Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
>>Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
>>If this works it seems its a easier way out.
>
>
> I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's nothing in
> your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it will work as a router
> http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
>
> A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the other. A
> router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic places. That's how
> traffic from multiple machines gets to the right place and back again. You
> do need a router to connect more than one machine to the Internet.
>
I suspect that he can use it as he wishes.
-------- Comp 1
Adsl Unit ------ Hub--|
-------- Comp 2
It shows the unit as being connected to an AP via eth and providing
connectivity. So long as his gateway address is set on each machine to
the IP of the Adsl unit he will probably be able to treat it as a proxy
or nat
--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
======================================================================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
======================================================================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
Geniuses remove it
|
|
| | From: | Collector»NZ | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:09 +1300 |
|
|
| Collector»NZ said the following on 14/01/2005 11:33 a.m.:
> Robert Singers said the following on 14/01/2005 11:20 a.m.:
>
>> Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
>>> Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
>>> If this works it seems its a easier way out.
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's nothing
>> in your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it will work as a
>> router http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
>>
>> A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the
>> other. A router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic
>> places. That's how traffic from multiple machines gets to the right
>> place and back again. You do need a router to connect more than one
>> machine to the Internet.
>>
> I suspect that he can use it as he wishes.
> -------- Comp 1
> Adsl Unit ------ Hub--|
> -------- Comp 2
>
> It shows the unit as being connected to an AP via eth and providing
> connectivity. So long as his gateway address is set on each machine to
> the IP of the Adsl unit he will probably be able to treat it as a proxy
> or nat
Dam the spec PDF which would confirm or deny my ideas wont display for me.
--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
======================================================================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
======================================================================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
Geniuses remove it
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:41:00 +1300 |
|
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:09 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
> Collector»NZ said the following on 14/01/2005 11:33 a.m.:
>> Robert Singers said the following on 14/01/2005 11:20 a.m.:
>>
>>> Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
>>>> Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
>>>> If this works it seems its a easier way out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's nothing
>>> in your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it will work as a
>>> router http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
>>>
>>> A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the
>>> other. A router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic
>>> places. That's how traffic from multiple machines gets to the right
>>> place and back again. You do need a router to connect more than one
>>> machine to the Internet.
>>>
>> I suspect that he can use it as he wishes.
>> -------- Comp 1
>> Adsl Unit ------ Hub--|
>> -------- Comp 2
>>
>> It shows the unit as being connected to an AP via eth and providing
>> connectivity. So long as his gateway address is set on each machine to
>> the IP of the Adsl unit he will probably be able to treat it as a proxy
>> or nat
> Dam the spec PDF which would confirm or deny my ideas wont display for me.
Is this still the 302G?
I _think_ he's on the right track.. just needs to set the gateways
correctly ( eg the modems internal ip is the gateway 10.1.1.1 IIRC )
for Incoming (eg services available to the net like http and such ) he
needs to look at the documentation for info on setting up DMZ's
--
It's only paranoia if you're wrong
|
|
| | From: | =?UTF-8?B?Q29sbGVjdG9ywrtOWg==?= | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:56:33 +1300 |
|
|
| froggy said the following on 14/01/2005 11:41 a.m.:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:09 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>
>
>>Collector»NZ said the following on 14/01/2005 11:33 a.m.:
>>
>>>Robert Singers said the following on 14/01/2005 11:20 a.m.:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
>>>>>Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
>>>>>If this works it seems its a easier way out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's nothing
>>>>in your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it will work as a
>>>>router http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
>>>>
>>>>A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the
>>>>other. A router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic
>>>>places. That's how traffic from multiple machines gets to the right
>>>>place and back again. You do need a router to connect more than one
>>>>machine to the Internet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I suspect that he can use it as he wishes.
>>> -------- Comp 1
>>>Adsl Unit ------ Hub--|
>>> -------- Comp 2
>>>
>>>It shows the unit as being connected to an AP via eth and providing
>>>connectivity. So long as his gateway address is set on each machine to
>>>the IP of the Adsl unit he will probably be able to treat it as a proxy
>>>or nat
>>
>>Dam the spec PDF which would confirm or deny my ideas wont display for me.
>
>
> Is this still the 302G?
> I _think_ he's on the right track.. just needs to set the gateways
> correctly ( eg the modems internal ip is the gateway 10.1.1.1 IIRC )
> for Incoming (eg services available to the net like http and such ) he
> needs to look at the documentation for info on setting up DMZ's
>
Well I finally got the PDF spec sheet, wouldnt work with FF had to use
Iexplore.
What a pathetic product or should I say the information on it is
pathetic. No details at all that would give me any indication it was
other than a soft device and as such probably not capable of being
shared via a hub/switch.
--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
======================================================================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
======================================================================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
Geniuses remove it
|
|
| | From: | Jerry | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:03:58 +1300 |
|
|
| Collector»NZ wrote:
> froggy said the following on 14/01/2005 11:41 a.m.:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:09 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Collector»NZ said the following on 14/01/2005 11:33 a.m.:
>>>
>>>> Robert Singers said the following on 14/01/2005 11:20 a.m.:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
>>>>>> Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
>>>>>> If this works it seems its a easier way out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's
>>>>> nothing in your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it
>>>>> will work as a router http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
>>>>>
>>>>> A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the
>>>>> other. A router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic
>>>>> places. That's how traffic from multiple machines gets to the
>>>>> right place and back again. You do need a router to connect more
>>>>> than one machine to the Internet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that he can use it as he wishes.
>>>> -------- Comp 1
>>>> Adsl Unit ------ Hub--|
>>>> -------- Comp 2
>>>>
>>>> It shows the unit as being connected to an AP via eth and providing
>>>> connectivity. So long as his gateway address is set on each machine
>>>> to the IP of the Adsl unit he will probably be able to treat it as a
>>>> proxy or nat
>>>
>>>
>>> Dam the spec PDF which would confirm or deny my ideas wont display
>>> for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this still the 302G?
>> I _think_ he's on the right track.. just needs to set the gateways
>> correctly ( eg the modems internal ip is the gateway 10.1.1.1 IIRC )
>> for Incoming (eg services available to the net like http and such ) he
>> needs to look at the documentation for info on setting up DMZ's
>>
> Well I finally got the PDF spec sheet, wouldnt work with FF had to use
> Iexplore.
> What a pathetic product or should I say the information on it is
> pathetic. No details at all that would give me any indication it was
> other than a soft device and as such probably not capable of being
> shared via a hub/switch.
It has an ethernet port though, right? It needs it's own IP address
then doesn't it? Why couldn't it be shared via a switch? It may not
provide DHCP service (I don't know if it does or not) but if the rest of
the lan have fixed addresses in the range, why can't it be shared?
Jerry
|
|
| | From: | Ross Dawson | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:22:45 +1300 |
|
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:03:58 +1300, Jerry wrote:
>Collector»NZ wrote:
>> froggy said the following on 14/01/2005 11:41 a.m.:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:09 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Collector»NZ said the following on 14/01/2005 11:33 a.m.:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Singers said the following on 14/01/2005 11:20 a.m.:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Out from under a rock popped Ockerr and said
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey remember I didnt know the Difference between a Hub or a Router
>>>>>>> Also if it works, Why buy a Router when a small Hub is a lot Cheaper
>>>>>>> If this works it seems its a easier way out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt what you're suggesting doing will work because there's
>>>>>> nothing in your ADSL modem's description that indicates that it
>>>>>> will work as a router http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A hub is simply a repeater. What goes in one port goes out the
>>>>>> other. A router on the other hand knows how to direct traffic
>>>>>> places. That's how traffic from multiple machines gets to the
>>>>>> right place and back again. You do need a router to connect more
>>>>>> than one machine to the Internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that he can use it as he wishes.
>>>>> -------- Comp 1
>>>>> Adsl Unit ------ Hub--|
>>>>> -------- Comp 2
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows the unit as being connected to an AP via eth and providing
>>>>> connectivity. So long as his gateway address is set on each machine
>>>>> to the IP of the Adsl unit he will probably be able to treat it as a
>>>>> proxy or nat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dam the spec PDF which would confirm or deny my ideas wont display
>>>> for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this still the 302G?
>>> I _think_ he's on the right track.. just needs to set the gateways
>>> correctly ( eg the modems internal ip is the gateway 10.1.1.1 IIRC )
>>> for Incoming (eg services available to the net like http and such ) he
>>> needs to look at the documentation for info on setting up DMZ's
>>>
>> Well I finally got the PDF spec sheet, wouldnt work with FF had to use
>> Iexplore.
>> What a pathetic product or should I say the information on it is
>> pathetic. No details at all that would give me any indication it was
>> other than a soft device and as such probably not capable of being
>> shared via a hub/switch.
>
>It has an ethernet port though, right? It needs it's own IP address
>then doesn't it? Why couldn't it be shared via a switch? It may not
>provide DHCP service (I don't know if it does or not) but if the rest of
>the lan have fixed addresses in the range, why can't it be shared?
>
>Jerry
From memory it does have DHCP. But it has been about 2 or 3 months
since I played with one, also from memory it does have NAT or NAPT.and
it does definitely stay connected to the NET even after the computer
is turned off so it's not a soft modem unlike some poor excuses for
dsl connectivity are.
--
Cheers for now
Ross Dawson.
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 15:11:48 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped Jerry and said
> It has an ethernet port though, right? It needs it's own IP address
> then doesn't it? Why couldn't it be shared via a switch? It may not
> provide DHCP service (I don't know if it does or not) but if the rest of
> the lan have fixed addresses in the range, why can't it be shared?
Because it's not a router, it's a modem or at best a bridge. Something
else has to handle the routing to the internet.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/router.htm
What could be done is ADSL modem could be plugged into a PC running some
form of connection sharing software or routing software. However with
current prices it's just as easy to buy a small Wireless router and have it
be your firewall, DHCP server, NAT, and DNS proxy. As will as allowing you
to put PCs in other parts of the house without worrying about cabling.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:25:17 +1300 |
|
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:11:48 +1300, Robert Singers wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped Jerry and said
>
>> It has an ethernet port though, right? It needs it's own IP address
>> then doesn't it? Why couldn't it be shared via a switch? It may not
>> provide DHCP service (I don't know if it does or not) but if the rest of
>> the lan have fixed addresses in the range, why can't it be shared?
>
> Because it's not a router, it's a modem or at best a bridge. Something
> else has to handle the routing to the internet.
>
> http://computer.howstuffworks.com/router.htm
>
> What could be done is ADSL modem could be plugged into a PC running some
> form of connection sharing software or routing software. However with
> current prices it's just as easy to buy a small Wireless router and have it
> be your firewall, DHCP server, NAT, and DNS proxy. As will as allowing you
> to put PCs in other parts of the house without worrying about cabling.
ok I might be way off.... but
the telecom supplied d-link 302G is what I have.. one usb port.. one
ethernet port.. its a modem.. it does NAT making it a router?
it can be put into a virtual bridging mode ( I have mine 'bridge'
everything straight from the ext_if to my OpenBSD box however its not a
true bridge.. in that it has an IP( my definition may be screwed so
correct me if wrong) from what I read in the pdf found on the dlink site
you can run two machines on it .. one connected to the ethernet port (
needing no drivers) and one connected to the usb port (needing drivers
that are only available for windows ) thus making it.. in a sense.. a
switch although I havent tried this last definition because of windows
only drivers so again i may be wrong
if the above has only added to the confusion then disregard it
--
It's only paranoia if you're wrong
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 15:52:55 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped froggy and said
> ok I might be way off.... but
> the telecom supplied d-link 302G is what I have.. one usb port.. one
> ethernet port.. its a modem.. it does NAT making it a router?
No. NAT or Network Address Translation is just making one IP address
appear to be another. You use it generally to translate a private
address, one that won't work on the Internet, to a public address, one
that will.
So for example my Netgear Wirless router by default is set up for the
192.168.0.x/24 network. It means that I can have 254 IP addresses in use
on my home network, and if I go out to the Internet the router makes them
all look like the public IP address that my ISP assigned me.
> it can be put into a virtual bridging mode ( I have mine 'bridge'
> everything straight from the ext_if to my OpenBSD box however its not a
> true bridge.. in that it has an IP( my definition may be screwed so
> correct me if wrong) from what I read in the pdf found on the dlink
> site
There's bridging and then there's bridging. Years ago most modems
(telephone) could be put into bridge mode. What vendors have meant by
bridges over time has tended to differ a bit in implimentation.
> you can run two machines on it .. one connected to the ethernet port (
> needing no drivers) and one connected to the usb port (needing drivers
> that are only available for windows ) thus making it.. in a sense.. a
> switch although I havent tried this last definition because of windows
> only drivers so again i may be wrong
It would be a switch if the ports were two seperate collesion domains but
the same broadcast domain. I guess being two different port types, that
would be the case.
> if the above has only added to the confusion then disregard it
Not for me :-)
In you case if you're running Linux you could add a second NIC and use
the Linux machine as a router.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:26:26 +1300 |
|
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:52:55 +1300, Robert Singers wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped froggy and said
>
>> ok I might be way off.... but
>> the telecom supplied d-link 302G is what I have.. one usb port.. one
>> ethernet port.. its a modem.. it does NAT making it a router?
>
> No. NAT or Network Address Translation is just making one IP address
> appear to be another. You use it generally to translate a private
> address, one that won't work on the Internet, to a public address, one
> that will.
at the risk of being pedantic.. thats routing ( routing packets from one
network to another )
> So for example my Netgear Wirless router by default is set up for the
> 192.168.0.x/24 network. It means that I can have 254 IP addresses in
> use on my home network, and if I go out to the Internet the router makes
> them all look like the public IP address that my ISP assigned me.
>
>> it can be put into a virtual bridging mode ( I have mine 'bridge'
>> everything straight from the ext_if to my OpenBSD box however its not a
>> true bridge.. in that it has an IP( my definition may be screwed so
>> correct me if wrong) from what I read in the pdf found on the dlink
>> site
>
> There's bridging and then there's bridging. Years ago most modems
> (telephone) could be put into bridge mode. What vendors have meant by
> bridges over time has tended to differ a bit in implimentation.
>
hence why i tried to show it as virtual bridging again i may be being
pedantic
>> you can run two machines on it .. one connected to the ethernet port (
>> needing no drivers) and one connected to the usb port (needing drivers
>> that are only available for windows ) thus making it.. in a sense.. a
>> switch although I havent tried this last definition because of windows
>> only drivers so again i may be wrong
>
> It would be a switch if the ports were two seperate collesion domains
> but the same broadcast domain. I guess being two different port types,
> that would be the case.
>
>> if the above has only added to the confusion then disregard it
>
> Not for me :-)
>
> In you case if you're running Linux you could add a second NIC and use
> the Linux machine as a router.
OpenBSD isnt linux :P ( now i _am_ being pedantic )
--
It's only paranoia if you're wrong
|
|
| | From: | Richard | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:23:33 +1300 |
|
|
| froggy wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:52:55 +1300, Robert Singers wrote:
>
>
>>Out from under a rock popped froggy and said
>>
>>
>>>ok I might be way off.... but
>>>the telecom supplied d-link 302G is what I have.. one usb port.. one
>>>ethernet port.. its a modem.. it does NAT making it a router?
>>
>>No. NAT or Network Address Translation is just making one IP address
>>appear to be another. You use it generally to translate a private
>>address, one that won't work on the Internet, to a public address, one
>>that will.
>
> at the risk of being pedantic.. thats routing ( routing packets from one
> network to another )
NAT is more then routing, if your router simply routed the private IPs out the
PPP connection, they would be dropped at the first sensably configured router on
the way to the destination, and if they did by some miricle make it to the
destination, they would have no way to route back, the NAT is modifying the
source address and in some cases source port, its not just simply routing.
> hence why i tried to show it as virtual bridging again i may be being
> pedantic
Well true bridging is not supported by telecom (thanks mr monopoly) so anything
it does cant be a true bridge
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 20:05:57 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped Richard and said
> froggy wrote:
[snip]
>> at the risk of being pedantic.. thats routing ( routing packets from
>> one network to another )
>
> NAT is more then routing, if your router simply routed the private IPs
> out the PPP connection, they would be dropped at the first sensably
> configured router on the way to the destination, and if they did by
> some miricle make it to the destination, they would have no way to
> route back, the NAT is modifying the source address and in some cases
> source port, its not just simply routing.
To be even more pedantic, NAT is only the function that modifies the
source address and port. It's the routing software underneath that does
the routing :-)
>> hence why i tried to show it as virtual bridging again i may be being
>> pedantic
>
> Well true bridging is not supported by telecom (thanks mr monopoly) so
> anything it does cant be a true bridge
I think we've established that :-)
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:07:18 +1300 |
|
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:05:57 +1300, Robert Singers wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped Richard and said
>> froggy wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> at the risk of being pedantic.. thats routing ( routing packets from
>>> one network to another )
>>
>> NAT is more then routing, if your router simply routed the private IPs
>> out the PPP connection, they would be dropped at the first sensably
>> configured router on the way to the destination, and if they did by
>> some miricle make it to the destination, they would have no way to
>> route back, the NAT is modifying the source address and in some cases
>> source port, its not just simply routing.
>
> To be even more pedantic, NAT is only the function that modifies the
> source address and port. It's the routing software underneath that does
> the routing :-)
good point
--
It's only paranoia if you're wrong
|
|
| | From: | colinco | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:47:36 +1300 |
|
|
| In article Robert Singers says...
> > ok I might be way off.... but
> > the telecom supplied d-link 302G is what I have.. one usb port.. one
> > ethernet port.. its a modem.. it does NAT making it a router?
>
> No. NAT or Network Address Translation is just making one IP address
> appear to be another. You use it generally to translate a private
> address, one that won't work on the Internet, to a public address, one
> that will.
>
Or more than 1 internal address. Why get so hung up on whether the
device is called a modem or a router if it has NAT? The nokia M11 had
NAT and could support a hub full of PCs but was still called a Modem by
Nokia.
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 15 Jan 2005 09:07:54 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped colinco and said
> Or more than 1 internal address. Why get so hung up on whether the
> device is called a modem or a router if it has NAT? The nokia M11 had
> NAT and could support a hub full of PCs but was still called a Modem by
> Nokia.
and the relevance of that is?
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | Richard | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:58:28 +1300 |
|
|
| Robert Singers wrote:
> Because it's not a router, it's a modem or at best a bridge. Something
> else has to handle the routing to the internet.
Yeah, but bridging doesnt work on telecoms adsl implimentation which is PPP over
ATM, not the PPP over ethernet or else bridged ethernet that most other places
use, there is no true ethernet ADSL modem that will work on telecoms adsl products.
There are some that will do PPPoE to PPPoA relay, and allow PPPoE software on a
PC to go directly to the PPP on the line, but these are rare, and there the old
M1122 method of using PPTP to the router to get the IP onto the PC behind it.
But these are stretching the definition or a modem and bluring it.
But what may have happened is the NAT in the device in question is crippled to
only support a single host behind it, and to provide no IP filtering incoming to it.
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 20:01:41 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped Richard and said
>> Because it's not a router, it's a modem or at best a bridge.
>> Something else has to handle the routing to the internet.
>
> Yeah, but bridging doesnt work on telecoms adsl implimentation which
> is PPP over ATM, not the PPP over ethernet or else bridged ethernet
> that most other places use, there is no true ethernet ADSL modem that
> will work on telecoms adsl products.
Didn't know that. Telstra cable has always been a cheaper option for me,
and the DSL installs have all generally been Cisco routers.
> There are some that will do PPPoE to PPPoA relay, and allow PPPoE
> software on a PC to go directly to the PPP on the line, but these are
> rare, and there the old M1122 method of using PPTP to the router to
> get the IP onto the PC behind it. But these are stretching the
> definition or a modem and bluring it.
>
> But what may have happened is the NAT in the device in question is
> crippled to only support a single host behind it, and to provide no IP
> filtering incoming to it.
Sounds right from what other people are saying.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | Jerry | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:14:33 +1300 |
|
|
| Robert Singers wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped Jerry and said
>
>
>>It has an ethernet port though, right? It needs it's own IP address
>>then doesn't it? Why couldn't it be shared via a switch? It may not
>>provide DHCP service (I don't know if it does or not) but if the rest of
>>the lan have fixed addresses in the range, why can't it be shared?
>
>
> Because it's not a router, it's a modem or at best a bridge. Something
> else has to handle the routing to the internet.
>
> http://computer.howstuffworks.com/router.htm
>
> What could be done is ADSL modem could be plugged into a PC running some
> form of connection sharing software or routing software. However with
> current prices it's just as easy to buy a small Wireless router and have it
> be your firewall, DHCP server, NAT, and DNS proxy. As will as allowing you
> to put PCs in other parts of the house without worrying about cabling.
>
Sorry, but you are wrong, and I know what a router is. Go to
http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=67&rid=322&sec=0 and you
see that the modem can connect 2 computers with no switch, one on the
ethernet connection, and another on the usb connection. Got that?
Now, go to http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67 and click the link that
says "FAB Sheet(PDF)". On the right hand side of the page, under a
picture of the modem, in rather large letters it says "DSL-302G ADSL
Combo Router"
The word "Combo" indicates it has more than one function, in this case a
modem and router.
Personally I'm using an old 233mhz PC with 2 nics as a router, a hub
connected to that. With prices as they are now I might retire the
E-smith box and get a router to save power. Reliability hasn't been an
issue, it has 223 days on it since last booted. I had over 400 days on
it at one time but unplugged everything for a thunderstorm.
Jerry
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 19:59:44 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped Jerry and said
> Sorry, but you are wrong, and I know what a router is. Go to
> http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=67&rid=322&sec=0 and
> you see that the modem can connect 2 computers with no switch, one on
> the ethernet connection, and another on the usb connection. Got that?
Yes however that's not conclusive of anything.
> Now, go to http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67 and click the link
> that says "FAB Sheet(PDF)". On the right hand side of the page, under
> a picture of the modem, in rather large letters it says "DSL-302G ADSL
> Combo Router"
You're being rather disengenous expecting me to look at ever document to
find the one time it says router when none of the product specs mention
any routing functions.
> The word "Combo" indicates it has more than one function, in this case
> a modem and router.
With all due respect it does mean that at all - it means combination.
It could quite as easily mean a combination of Ethernet and USB ports.
> Personally I'm using an old 233mhz PC with 2 nics as a router, a hub
> connected to that. With prices as they are now I might retire the
> E-smith box and get a router to save power. Reliability hasn't been
> an issue, it has 223 days on it since last booted. I had over 400
> days on it at one time but unplugged everything for a thunderstorm.
I highly recomend it. Especially Wireless. For all you know I'm
currently posting from the Dunny.
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | Jerry | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:25:23 +1300 |
|
|
| Robert Singers wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped Jerry and said
>
>
>>Sorry, but you are wrong, and I know what a router is. Go to
>>http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=67&rid=322&sec=0 and
>>you see that the modem can connect 2 computers with no switch, one on
>>the ethernet connection, and another on the usb connection. Got that?
>
>
> Yes however that's not conclusive of anything.
>
>
>>Now, go to http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=67 and click the link
>>that says "FAB Sheet(PDF)". On the right hand side of the page, under
>>a picture of the modem, in rather large letters it says "DSL-302G ADSL
>>Combo Router"
>
>
> You're being rather disengenous expecting me to look at ever document to
> find the one time it says router when none of the product specs mention
> any routing functions.
>
>
>>The word "Combo" indicates it has more than one function, in this case
>>a modem and router.
>
>
> With all due respect it does mean that at all - it means combination.
> It could quite as easily mean a combination of Ethernet and USB ports.
>
>
I got my hands on a 302G modem. It has an ethernet address of 10.1.1.1
and supports devices of 10.1.1.3 - 10.1.1.33 IIRC. Would you explain
again to me how this modem will not function as a router?
Jerry
|
|
| | From: | Robert Singers | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | 24 Jan 2005 18:49:27 +1300 |
|
|
| Out from under a rock popped Jerry and said
> I got my hands on a 302G modem. It has an ethernet address of 10.1.1.1
> and supports devices of 10.1.1.3 - 10.1.1.33 IIRC. Would you explain
> again to me how this modem will not function as a router?
Jerry, you seem to have a problem with the English language. I didn't say
that it wouldn't function as a router. I said there's nothing in the
online docs that indicates it does, accept for the one page where you
pointed out the word router.
I also pointed out that you were incorrect in insisting that the term combo
could only refer to the combination of router and modem, and that it could
just as easily refer to the combination of USB and Ethernet.
Now as you have one in your hot little hands would you mind telling as what
exactly that you can descern that it does?
--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
|
|
| | From: | Jerry | | Subject: | Re: D-Link ADSL update question | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:30:41 +1300 |
|
|
|
>>I got my hands on a 302G modem. It has an ethernet address of 10.1.1.1
>>and supports devices of 10.1.1.3 - 10.1.1.33 IIRC. Would you explain
>>again to me how this modem will not function as a router?
>
>
> Jerry, you seem to have a problem with the English language. I didn't say
> that it wouldn't function as a router. I said there's nothing in the
> online docs that indicates it does, accept for the one page where you
> pointed out the word router.
>
> I also pointed out that you were incorrect in insisting that the term combo
> could only refer to the combination of router and modem, and that it could
> just as easily refer to the combination of USB and Ethernet.
>
> Now as you have one in your hot little hands would you mind telling as what
> exactly that you can descern that it does?
Actually, you did say it wouldn't function as a router...
"Because it's not a router, it's a modem or at best a bridge. Something
else has to handle the routing to the internet."
I don't have one, I set one up. You can connect the ethernet port to a
switch, and it routes any PC on the network to the internet.
Jerry
|
|
