Searching \ for '[OT]Home PC Networking Routers' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=home+networking
Search entire site for: 'Home PC Networking Routers'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]Home PC Networking Routers'
2007\11\07@000529 by jtroxas

picon face
I'm considering networking 4 PC,s at home.. Upto now I was only using XP
built in Internet connection sharing... through an ethernet switch/hub
Now I'm considering getting a router to share a broadband Internet
connection..
but before I do so..
people here at home uses internet file sharing Like torrents on their PC,s..
I've heard of people using file sharing software had problems with routers..
because the routers NAT uses an assigned port per local IP address each..
are there routers that allow for this filesharing softwares to work on
client PC,s?..
I've also heard to set the router to PPPoE? but my ISP didnt give a user
name and password.. and this PPoE requires a user name and password setting
on the router..
what router to choose?
dont care much about security since its only home PC's but were using File
and Print sharing so the least I dont want people from outside the network
to access our files...



2007\11\07@003541 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
jtroxas wrote:
{Quote hidden}

The problem with file sharing is it dislikes NAT (network address
translation)
If you want the best possible file sharing you best off putting the file
sharing on your server type system and downloading on there then
grabbing it from there to your local PC's.
You should try and get the username/password because pretty much
anything you do will replace the modem or at least some portion of its
brain (ie the bridging you spoke of).

2007\11\07@081942 by Rolf

face picon face
jtroxas wrote:
> I'm considering networking 4 PC,s at home.. Upto now I was only using XP
> built in Internet connection sharing... through an ethernet switch/hub
> Now I'm considering getting a router to share a broadband Internet
> connection..
> but before I do so..
> people here at home uses internet file sharing Like torrents on their PC,s..
> I've heard of people using file sharing software had problems with routers..
> because the routers NAT uses an assigned port per local IP address each..
> are there routers that allow for this filesharing softwares to work on
> client PC,s?..
> I've also heard to set the router to PPPoE? but my ISP didnt give a user
> name and password.. and this PPoE requires a user name and password setting
> on the router..
> what router to choose?
> dont care much about security since its only home PC's but were using File
> and Print sharing so the least I dont want people from outside the network
> to access our files...
>  
Hi There

I think you have a lot of investigation to do still. By the sounds of
it, you are trying to apply somewhat misguided concepts to your setup
that do not necessarily need to be done....

If your ISP did not provide a username/password, then it is likely they
use direct DHCP rather than PPPoE. I am not as familiar with XP as I am
with Linux, but you can probably find in your network settings what
scheme is used by your ISP. If you have Cable Internet, it is almost
certain you use DHCP. If you use DSL it is almost certain too. If you
use ADSL it is likely, but not certain, that you use PPPoE. It is also
possible, though, for a residential service unlikely, that you have a
plain static IP address.... but, you would know that already if you did.

As for Torrents, etc. It is possible to set this up with almost all
routers, to 'synchronize' your torrent software with your Router in
order to set up port forwarding for each PC individually...

see http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Port_forwarding

Basically set PC1 torrent software to listen on port X, and then get
your router to portforward port X on the Internet side to port X on PC1.
Then set PC2 to listen on port Y, and forward port Y on the internet
side to port Y on PC2. etc.

Regardless, it is possible, but you will need to get a better
understanding of what you actually have right now before you can get a
router/firewall installed.

Rolf

2007\11\07@102615 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 13:05 +0800, jtroxas wrote:
> I'm considering networking 4 PC,s at home.. Upto now I was only using XP
> built in Internet connection sharing... through an ethernet switch/hub
> Now I'm considering getting a router to share a broadband Internet
> connection..
> but before I do so..
> people here at home uses internet file sharing Like torrents on their PC,s..
> I've heard of people using file sharing software had problems with routers..
> because the routers NAT uses an assigned port per local IP address each..
> are there routers that allow for this filesharing softwares to work on
> client PC,s?..

All consumer routers will "work" with file sharing apps. The issue is
"how well".

First off, if you want the top speed you often have to forward certain
ports on the router to the client machines. As long as this port
forwarding matches how you have your clients set up you will get full
speeds.

The second issue is many consumer routers have problems with the sheer
number of TCP/IP connections P2P apps can create. Some slow down, some
reboot, others hard crash requiring a power cycle. This issue is only
really of concern if you use P2P ALOT. Most users will not see problems.

> I've also heard to set the router to PPPoE? but my ISP didnt give a user
> name and password.. and this PPoE requires a user name and password setting
> on the router..

PPPoE is one way to connect to your ISP. You don't mention where you are
and what your ISP is.

Many cable ISPs in NA don't use anything, just straight ethernet/DHCP to
get going. At most you'll have to clone the MAC address of your PC, all
routers support this.

Many DSL ISPs use PPPoE since it shares much of the technology PPP
connections used. It requires a username/password.

Much of the rest of the world uses PPTP, it also requires a
username/password.

Since you say you don't have a username/password I'm assuming it's just
straight ethernet/DHCP, so any router will work for you.

> what router to choose?
> dont care much about security since its only home PC's but were using File
> and Print sharing so the least I dont want people from outside the network
> to access our files...

Personally, I'd recommend the Linksys WRT54GL. Why? It runs Linux! I
reflashed mine with DD-WRT and it works amazingly well. Even runs a VPN
server so I can VPN to home.

Routers are pretty much commodity items these days, there isn't much to
differentiate them anymore.

TTYL

2007\11\07@104034 by Joshua Shriver

picon face
I agree, I have the WRT54GS v4 or v5 which still ran linux. Then
reflashed it with DD-WRT and really happy with the results. I would
just stay away from WRT54G v5 or higher as they are no longer linux
based, have 1/2 the memory and get congested very easily   (imho).

The GS (speedbooster) model seems to be the same kind of hardware as
older G models so more memory and with dd-wrt you can even over clock
the CPU if you really need it, as well as signal strength if you need
to go further.

-Josh

> Personally, I'd recommend the Linksys WRT54GL. Why? It runs Linux! I
> reflashed mine with DD-WRT and it works amazingly well. Even runs a VPN
> server so I can VPN to home.

2007\11\07@173310 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 7, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

> The GS (speedbooster) model seems to be the same kind of hardware as
> older G models so more memory and with dd-wrt you can even over clock
> the CPU if you really need it, as well as signal strength if you need
> to go further.


Warning about the WRT54GS:  I had DD-WRT on one and was very "happy"  
with it for a long time... until I plugged a test machine directly  
into the cable modem and compared speeds...

The WRT54GS was the source of a minor bottleneck that made it seem  
like it was doing a good job, but it wasn't.  The fastest I could push  
data through the DD-WRT (latest public version - full VPN version but  
not using the VPN features often) was about 8Mb/s.  It couldn't keep  
up with a 12 Mb/s pipe it was being fed with, to either wired or  
wireless ports with no "odd" configuration items like QoS or any of  
the other CPU-intensive things turned on.

It was simply acting as a NAT router.  With a few quick tests, adding  
other things like QoS made it worse.  I yanked it out of the network  
forever after seeing this.

Additionally I also found that the Linksys WRT54GS was also quite an  
obnoxious RF interference source on VHF in the Amateur Radio portions  
of the band, specifically the higher end above 147 MHz.  The RF was  
coming from the Ethernet chipset.  (If all Ethernet ports were  
disconnected, the RF noise stopped.)  Not from the 802.11X RF deck.

I switched to a Netgear 802.11g access point (non-router) and am  
letting the cable modem handle the NAT now, and it all works a heck of  
a lot better/faster.

I forgot the KISS principal when setting up the home network with the  
Linksys originally -- and we all know the first rule of the KISS  
principal... if you don't follow it, it WILL come back to bite you in  
the end.

--
Nate Duehr
spam_OUTnateTakeThisOuTspamnatetech.com



2007\11\07@181825 by Joshua Shriver

picon face
Fascinating post.  I'm a ham too and have been noticing problems with
my gear on the 2meter band. Then again it's sitting a couple feet away
from my WRT54GS.

-Josh

On 11/7/07, Nate Duehr <.....nateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\11\07@183845 by Funny NYPD

picon face
I am using netgear router, pretty happy for the performance and customer support. It is relatively cheaper than other brands.

Funny N.
New Bedford, MA
http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com



{Original Message removed}

2007\11\07@185107 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

> Fascinating post.  I'm a ham too and have been noticing problems with
> my gear on the 2meter band. Then again it's sitting a couple feet away
> from my WRT54GS.

Nice to meet another ham here, Josh.  There's a number of us here.

Kill the power to the WRT54GS and see if your receivers suddenly sound  
nice and quiet again.

The interference was "bad" for FM modes, but REALLY REALLY bad for  
SSB... luckily like I said it was centered up near 147 MHz... and most  
SSB activity is down at 144.2 and around there... so... I hadn't  
noticed it sooner.

I even tried putting some chokes (ferrite) on the Ethernet cables  
where they egressed the router and some other things -- I could make  
it "better" but the sensitivity of the ham receivers was just so high  
that they could always "hear" the Linksys, no matter how much I  
shielded it, etc... the Ethernet cables themselves became  
unintentional antennas for the offending interference... and carried  
it all over the house.

I have one FM receiver that is capable of 12 dB SINAD reception at  
around .17uV ... and that thing is just so hot, even a little bit of  
on-frequency noise from a source nearby is bound to drive it nuts.  
Since sensitivity and selectivity are also a trade-off, I'll mention  
that it's also one of the least selective receivers in the ham shack,  
but in this case it didn't matter... once I fired up the IFR 1500 and  
looked at the Linksys with a spectrum analyzer, it went in the trash  
can.   (Okay, to be honest, I'm a packrat and it didn't really get  
canned, but it's sitting on a shelf tagged with a toe-tag that it was  
throwing RF noise on VHF and not to use it anywhere near the house!  I  
couldn't bring myself to throw it away!  GRIN...)

Interestingly also, just plugging a cable into the Ethernet ports  
wouldn't do it.  You had to have the port fully active and linked to  
another device.  Then the noise came.  The more ports (out of the 5 on  
the back of the thing) active, the worse the noise.

--
Nate Duehr (WY0X)
.....nateKILLspamspam.....natetech.com



2007\11\17@173528 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
jtroxas wrote:

> people here at home uses internet file sharing Like torrents on their PC,s..
> I've heard of people using file sharing software had problems with routers..
> because the routers NAT uses an assigned port per local IP address each..

I'm a little late here, but FWIW, the Windows Internet Connection Sharing
uses NAT and doesn't work that differently from normal broadband routers,
so the results should be similar (possibly after some setup fiddling) but
safer (as no machine is exposed to the Internet).

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...