share internet connection to 5 pc using 4-ports router & a 8-ports hub?

C

chenwei

Guest
#1
hi, let me explain my scenario first. i got 5 pc in my house now, and considered of the cost, i used hub + ICS with my pc on 24 hrs. however i feel that 24 hrs on my pc is harmful, coz my room is totally closed during working hours. so i am thinking to get a router instead.

however, found difficult to get a reasonable price router with 6 port, 8-ports is even more expensive, so is it possible to get a 4-ports router, and a hub to share the internet connection to 5 PCs? the only way i can think of is to use ICS again on my pc so that the 5th pc can get internet connection (though he need my pc on in order to online), is this do-able? any other better solutions that i dun need to use ICS at all?
 
C

chenwei

Guest
#2
Originally posted by catch23
Having your computer on 24 hours a day is not harmful...My computer at the moment has been up 49 hours, and my NAT has been up for 1 week and 3 days (following a power outage after a 5 week uptime)...

If you don't want to do it specifically on your computer, get another computer setup alone and connect the modem to it...then connect every other computer to a hub (I'd recommend a switch). That's how my house is setup now. I don't like routers...
well, maybe i shouldn't say harmful. i just dun want my pc on 24 hrs 7 days, because the environment is not suitable, and my HD already got problem, which i guess it's due to the heat. :(

ok, so if i WANT to use router, is the way i mentioned in first post workable? :eek:
 
T

Tek

Guest
#3
If you are thinking of getting a router, that is the best option.

I have done NAT and IP masquerading using Windows and Linux, and using a router is still better. I have an SMC 7004ABR 4-port router and I have never had a problem with it. A lot of people I know have since gotten the same one too and love it.

Although, if you have a used, cheap PC lying around and you don't mind leaving it on, using software like Sygate is also a good option... up to you...
 
#4
Originally posted by chenwei
ok, so if i WANT to use router, is the way i mentioned in first post workable? :eek:
To finally answer your question:
Yes!
Just hook them up (uplink on one to normal port on the other), connect the computers, configure the router and off you go. No biggie. A switch is, as always, recommended but not necessary.
 

Reg

eXperienced!
#5
Most SOHO routers are pretty limited like catch23 said. The reason is because they aren't technically routers, but Internet Gateways. Nearly all SOHO routers use NAT to accomplish internet connection sharing and to provide a basic firewall. I used to run a Linksys Router w/4 Port Switch. It worked fine. Personally, I run a Cisco 806 for NAT. As for running a PC, I run my Samba server 24/7 and don't have any problems. If you feel that your hardware is shaky (such as your HD like you said earlier), it might be better to run it 24/7. IDE HD's are not designed for constantly being turned on and off. Doing so will do more harm to it than good.

PS: NAT = Network Address Translation
 
B

bobsmith

Guest
#6
actually, the way you posted to do it isn't necessary. once you have the 4 port router connected to your net connection all you have to do is plug the upling port from the hub into one of the ports on the router(or use a crossover cable to connect any of the ports on the hub to a port on the router if it doesn't have an uplink). Then you just put in the ip of the router for the gateway address for all the computers and plug them to any open port on the hub or the router. you don't need to use ICS on any of the computers. the router takes care of that and with the hub and the router hooked together the packets will find their way there.
 
O

oxy

Guest
#7
I dont understand why people are saying that routers aren't worth the trouble, besides sharing access extremely easily, your computer does not have to be on 24/7, it also acts as a firewall,
and bandwidth speed is transferred evenly, rather than first come, first serve.
Nothing could be more simple, plug in the hub to the uplink port in the router, configure the router and you're set.
 

Reg

eXperienced!
#8
The reason most people say that is because the functions you get from a SOHO router are exactly the same as you would get from running a server with ICS:

1. DHCP - Provide dynamic IP address assignments and DNS assignments without user intervention.

Availability: Router or Server with ICS

2. NAT - Translates local private lan addresses into addresses valid for travel over the internet. Also provides basic firewall since private addresses can not be accessed over the internet.

Availability - Router or Server with ICS

3. Connection Sharing - Method of sharing your broadband (or even dialup) connection with multiple computers in your home.

Availability - Router or Server with ICS

4. Required to be on all the time in order to funtion:

Router or Server with ICS

Most people would rather use an existing machine to do the same or more functions than to go and spend more money for a device that does the same thing. Personally, I rather use a router. I can better control packet path determination and route packets to the faster connection better. Even though I have a 2Mb/384Kb connection (no uncapping), I average 3-4Mb downloads because I use the fastest link possible.
 
#9
Originally posted by oxy
I dont understand why people are saying that routers aren't worth the trouble, besides sharing access extremely easily, your computer does not have to be on 24/7, it also acts as a firewall,
and bandwidth speed is transferred evenly, rather than first come, first serve.
Nothing could be more simple, plug in the hub to the uplink port in the router, configure the router and you're set.
True, true, true.

Reg:
1. Alot of people don't have a second machine to have as server.
2. Most people don't want a buzzing computer on 24/7. A small silent box you can hang on the wall feels much safer as well.
 
O

open_source

Guest
#10
Originally posted by catch23
I put up with the limitations of a router in one of my classes at school...there's a lot of things my instructor wants me to do that I can't because of it....they're not worth messing with...especially if you have a real NETWORK...
I think you are a bit confused catch23. When you set up a computer as an ICS server then this computer is your router.

If you are not able to do things that your instructor wants it is because he needs to study a bit more not because the router is messing things up. He should not be requiring you to perform functions that the router prohibits.

Also not sure of what you mean by not needing them if you have a real NETWORK. If you have a network that has access to the outside world you need a router/gateway.
 

Reg

eXperienced!
#11
Zedric: I didn't say I didn't like routers. I said that that's why most people who don't like them don't like them.
 
#12
Originally posted by open_source
Also not sure of what you mean by not needing them if you have a real NETWORK. If you have a network that has access to the outside world you need a router/gateway.
I don't know what catch meant, but I can tell you what I would mean with REAL network:

- A network not using NAT.
- Each workstation has it's own public IP.
- Any routers are not NAT routers but rather "real" routers.

Reg: Ok. I read it as "most people" out of all people, rather than "most people" out of some people.
 
#13
Originally posted by catch23
Real networks don't use routers..they uses a series of hubs connected to multiple large switches...which connect to a server of some kind.
Of course they use routers! How else would you route the traffic? How else could you span across more then one C-class (xxx.xxx.xxx.*)? It's just not a NAT router.

Code:
          Internet
              |
          Router(s)
           /     \
      Switch     Switch
     //||||\\    //||||\\
    (Bunches of computers)
 

Reg

eXperienced!
#14
Actually, being a Cisco Network Admin (CCNA), I can tell you that Zedric is absolutely right.

Routers are the most essential part of a network. Without a router, packets would not route from one network to another. Routers forward information (speaking internet) using IP addresses (OSI Layer 3 Devices). If your network address is (since Zedric used a class C, I'll stick with it so as not to confuse people):

201.11.20.XXX

You would setup your router so that it recognizes 201.11.20.0 as the network. Packets with the destination address of 201.11.20.XXX would not forward outside the router. Packets with anything else would (we're not going to get into subnetting because that's another long issue).

Routers are path determination devices. They determine the best path (by terms of best path, it doesn't mean fastest. Depending on the network setup, the best path can be based on the cheapest link, the most reliable link, or the fastest path) to forward the packet over and do so accordingly. Once a packet is forwarded, a record of it is stored into what is called an Routing Table (note that Routers store both source and destination addresses). Routers can also forward other protocols within the network that are non-internet based such as IPX (Novell), DecNet, AppleTalk, etc.

Switches are packet switching devices. They switch packets across multiple interfaces. A switch is commonly referred to in networking as a multiport bridge. Switches forward packets based on MAC addresses. When a packet reaches a switch, the switch looks at MAC address of the destination. If it finds a match, it forwards it through the interface that is listed in its MAC Tables. If it does not have a record of the address, it broadcasts the packet through all it's ports until a match is found. Once it finds the destination, it stores it in the Tables for future reference. The packet's destination is not on the network, the packet will travel up Zedric's diagram until it gets to the router, in which it will look at the IP address to see if it's on the network or not. If so, it disregards it. If not, it forwards it to the destination.

Hubs are a BUS device. This means that a hub could be considered as a single cable that connects all computers to a central point. Hubs are dummy devices. They do no path determination. In networking, a hub could be considered as a multiport repeater. When a packet gets to a hub, the hub retimes the packet, amplifys it, then sends it out all the ports. The problem with hubs is that unlike switches, in which bandwidth is dedicated per port, hubs are shared bandwidth. If you have a 100Mb hub, the bandwidth is shared with all devices. If you had a 10 port hub, you would have about 10Mb per computer (100Mb / 10 PCs = 10Mb per computer). Most older networks are hub based because that was the technology back then. If newer networks are running using hubs, they are probably doing so due to costs.

As for NAT, some *REAL* networks do in fact use NAT. The reason is because NAT provides an extra blanket of security and it's cheaper (especially if you need a lot of addresses and you can't get a block). But it is better to run NATless due to translation limitations.

SOHO routers, as stated are not *REAL* routers, but Internet Gateways. They do not make path forwarding decisions. They simply allow uses to connect multiple PC's to a single connection. Path forwarding comes from your next hop, which is usually your ISP's area router.
 
#16
Originally posted by open_source
So you do not care about security?
Of course I do. If you have a *REAL* network, you can have a transparent firewall:
Code:
Internet
   |
Firewall
   |
 Switch
//||||\\
Computers
This can easily be done using a Linux or BSD box rather than purchasing an expensive "normal" firewall (transparent or not). The point with this firewall is that it is transparent, you can't see it. It will take in all the incoming traffic, filter it at your pleasure and send the accepted traffic through. The transparency makes this firewall very safe beacuse it doesn't have to have an IP. With no IP there is no firewall for a possible hacker to attack. To put it in symbols: If you try to get in you won't hit a wall. There just won't be anything there. Much safer than any NAT router can ever do.
 
T

ThePunkerGuy

Guest
#17
Here is how i have my internet setup..
I have 6 comps in my house. I have an Alcatel Speed Touch Home DSL modem that i hacked to a Alcatel Speed Touch Pro so that it has the PPP option (basically allows the modem to act as a modem and a router all in one). Then i have the modem plugged into my cheap but 100% flawless SkyLink 8 port switch. I then plug some comps into the switch. For the comps on the other side of my house i ran a cable from my switch to a Netgear 4 port hub and hook my other computers up through that. Bascially i would use a router.. there isnt really many dissadvantages.. the only thing i cannot really do is host online games.. but i can join them so all is well.
- Mike
 
O

open_source

Guest
#18
Originally posted by Zedric
Of course I do. If you have a *REAL* network, you can have a transparent firewall:
Code:
Internet
   |
Firewall
   |
 Switch
//||||\\
Computers
This can easily be done using a Linux or BSD box rather than purchasing an expensive "normal" firewall (transparent or not). The point with this firewall is that it is transparent, you can't see it. It will take in all the incoming traffic, filter it at your pleasure and send the accepted traffic through. The transparency makes this firewall very safe beacuse it doesn't have to have an IP. With no IP there is no firewall for a possible hacker to attack. To put it in symbols: If you try to get in you won't hit a wall. There just won't be anything there. Much safer than any NAT router can ever do.
It is still better to use NAT even with a high end firewall. Why use up more IP's than necessary? Besides that it is very expensive to buy full blocks of IP's. Yes IPv6 will introduce many many more available IP's but untill it is implemeted why waste them?
 
#19
Originally posted by open_source
It is still better to use NAT even with a high end firewall. Why use up more IP's than necessary? Besides that it is very expensive to buy full blocks of IP's. Yes IPv6 will introduce many many more available IP's but untill it is implemeted why waste them?
NAT can cause problems, such as the above "can't host games" or server hosting problems and so on. It will also lower the tracability of a network. You can't trace a problem-causing computer through a NAT router.

Yes it is expensive to but a full block, but if you want a *REAL* network, you can probaly afford it. And it's a one-time sum (except perhaps for administrative costs).

The problem with IPV4 isn't really the amount of addresses, it's the fact that some companies were given way too many IP:s. Some companies (like IBM) own a whole A-class range (xxx.*.*.*) with 16.8 million addresses. They don't use that many. The american military I think has five A-classes.

IPV6 will give us 3.4*10^38 addresses. That means about 6.7*10^15 addresses per square meter of the earth! (if I did the math right) You can now get your own IP-range in IPV6 if you wish, and I think it's free.
 
O

open_source

Guest
#20
Originally posted by Zedric
NAT can cause problems, such as the above "can't host games" or server hosting problems and so on. It will also lower the tracability of a network. You can't trace a problem-causing computer through a NAT router.

With a good router this is still no problem. With a good router you can have a full block of IP's and still run NAT behind that router. You have the router forward the requested IP to whatever corresponding NAT IP. As far as gaming it takes a whole 60 seconds to open a port and forward it to the proper node.

As far as tracing a problem-causing computer you should be doing this on the LAN side of the router so this is not a valid point.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,970
Messages
673,297
Members
89,017
Latest member
cooldown498