Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

sharing internet on network

Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Share
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 6:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Our library now has a dial up connection to internet and would like to share the connection on the network. All computers use NT 4.0. Does NT have the internet connection sharing ability that I see that Windows 2000 and XP have? I have looked at all the information I can find and do not see that it does or the statement that it doesn't. Please tell me if you know!

Ann
June 27, 2004 4:30:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Ann,

NO, NT4 does not have 'internet sharing' capability (some would say thank God
!!) It is a very poor solution to the problem in any regard. There are thrid
party add-on options from companies from SyGate or WinGate that can acheive the
equivalent of the Win2k/XP ICS.

I would suggest instead you investigate a solution like a SMC 'barricade' or
similar router/hub. It can connect to a modem and manage the connection to the
net (login etc) automatically, and make the net resouces available to a standard
ethernet network without making any changes on any of the client machines
(except the obvious stuff like the correct TCP/IP settings to use the
barricadeas the default gateway etc.. All this is well documented with the info
supplied with the box) They are not expensive (a couple of hundred dollars tops)
and give you a far more controllable environment and you don't risk destablising
machines having to run specialised software.

Calvin.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 4:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Thank you for that answer. I don't know why it is so hard to get that information from Microsoft Knowledge Base. Guess I didn't know where to look.

Ann

"Calvin" wrote:

> Hi Ann,
>
> NO, NT4 does not have 'internet sharing' capability (some would say thank God
> !!) It is a very poor solution to the problem in any regard. There are thrid
> party add-on options from companies from SyGate or WinGate that can acheive the
> equivalent of the Win2k/XP ICS.
>
> I would suggest instead you investigate a solution like a SMC 'barricade' or
> similar router/hub. It can connect to a modem and manage the connection to the
> net (login etc) automatically, and make the net resouces available to a standard
> ethernet network without making any changes on any of the client machines
> (except the obvious stuff like the correct TCP/IP settings to use the
> barricadeas the default gateway etc.. All this is well documented with the info
> supplied with the box) They are not expensive (a couple of hundred dollars tops)
> and give you a far more controllable environment and you don't risk destablising
> machines having to run specialised software.
>
> Calvin.
>
>
Related resources
June 27, 2004 4:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi,

Also meant to mention, if you later opt to upgrade to some form of broadband
connection, with the solution i am offering all you need do is replace the
phone-modem with a DSL or cable modem and nothing else need be changed - it just
gets faster :-)

Calvin.
June 28, 2004 1:07:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Ann,

I'm not suprised Microsoft are silent on this issue - they are the ones who came
up with the 'brilliant' little scheme of ICS, so I doubt they would now turn
around and publicly admit what an unmitigated disaster the idea really was.

I'm never a big fan of making a PC do any form of network 'sharing' firewalling
etc.. when an external hardware device purpose built for the job is available.
If nothing else, the power consumption of a small 'plugpack' powered device is
considerably less than even the smallest of PC systems.

To newsgroup at large:
Yes - I know - a howl of protest from the people out there who use PCs running
Linux to do the router/firewall functions - I acknowledge your approach works -
but it is ten fold more difficult to set up and configure, and as a result,
particularly for the unskilled, prone to error. I think everyone would agree
that the only thing worse than no firewall is a misconfigured firewall !
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 8:59:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Calvin, I hope you're still around. I am interested in the rouuter solution you suggested but all the ads I see are for broadband. I have some questions. How do you connect the routeer to a modem if that is your internet connection? Will it work for a modem that is internal to a computer? There seem to be 4 ports, but will connect to many more computers? How? Since our network is cabled, does connecting the computer with the modem allow all those on the network to access internet? I'd appreciate these answers or direction to a source of answers. I tried asking the manufacturer through the web page but got no response.


"Calvin" wrote:

> Hi Ann,
>
> I'm not suprised Microsoft are silent on this issue - they are the ones who came
> up with the 'brilliant' little scheme of ICS, so I doubt they would now turn
> around and publicly admit what an unmitigated disaster the idea really was.
>
> I'm never a big fan of making a PC do any form of network 'sharing' firewalling
> etc.. when an external hardware device purpose built for the job is available.
> If nothing else, the power consumption of a small 'plugpack' powered device is
> considerably less than even the smallest of PC systems.
>
> To newsgroup at large:
> Yes - I know - a howl of protest from the people out there who use PCs running
> Linux to do the router/firewall functions - I acknowledge your approach works -
> but it is ten fold more difficult to set up and configure, and as a result,
> particularly for the unskilled, prone to error. I think everyone would agree
> that the only thing worse than no firewall is a misconfigured firewall !
>
>
July 1, 2004 1:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Ann,

a lot of 'broadband' routers include a serial port to allow connection of a
standard dial-up modem. The primary purpose is to give the users a 'fall-back'
position should the primary broadband connection (also connected to the router,
be it DSL/Cable etc..) fail. There is no reason however why you couldn't
permanently use the modem input as a full time connection however - keep in
mind, particularly if several clients are attempting to use the 'net
simultaneously, that the available bandwidth (not a lot to begin with using
dial-up) is shared between users, so they may complain it is painfully slow.

As I also pointed out, if you ultimately get tired of internet at a snail's
pace, you only need add a broadband modem (cable or DSL - simply plug it into
the WAN port) and you have vastly improved 'net speed :-)

The dial-up modem HAS to be an external modem that produces a standard serial
output designed to plug into the serial ports available on most PCs to be usable
on one of these 'router' type boxes. It has a plug on the back that your phone
modem plugs into. An internal modem is totally unusable in this role.

I usually STRONGLY recommend that nobody use internal modems of ANY kind
(dial-up or broadband) regardless of the role, simply because the external world
cabling on which your 'net connection flows is electronically a very savage
environment - bringing this world directly into the PC by using an internal
modem is just asking for trouble - an external modem provides a (somewhat)
effective barrier protecting the PC from the worst that the outside world offers
(transients, spikes, lightning etc..) I usually add additional surge protection
on the incoming phone line as added insurance.

As to integrating the router into your existing network, I presume you have a
Cat5 Ethernet network - ie: each computer is plugged into the building cabling
using a (usually) blue cable with plugs on it similar to that used for
telephones, and that all these cables wind up plugging into a central 'box' (a
hub or switch) somewhere in the building?

If so, the 'net router is simply plugged into a spare port on this central
hub/switch, some settings are made and the net will then appear as available to
all clients on the network. For somebody who is familiar with the setup, not a
difficult job.

I must apologise as well, after having suggested SMC Barricade, I went and had a
look, and in their infinite wisdom it would appear SMC have discontinued the
models that had Serial Port backup. A quick search however reveales that D-Link
certainly still make such a product (new model actually)

Have a look here: http://www.dlink.com.au/default.aspx?FolderID=229

I'm sure other manufacturers make similar products - I'm not recommending or
endorsing the D-Link solution, they merely happened to be the first that showed
up with a Google search :-)

Hope this information helps.

Calvin.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 8:23:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

I really appreciate that information. I believe I could handle the setup ok; however, unfortunately I have just installed the internal modem for dial-up and our library budget probably won't allow for the extra purchases now. I am going to check out the site for future possibilities. I guess we may have to try a software solution. We have been using a wireless connection to a T1 line, so I know we will not be very happy with the change, but our wireless "connector" went bad and we can't afford to replace both transmitters.

Thanks again.

Ann

"Calvin" wrote:

> Hi Ann,
>
> a lot of 'broadband' routers include a serial port to allow connection of a
> standard dial-up modem. The primary purpose is to give the users a 'fall-back'
> position should the primary broadband connection (also connected to the router,
> be it DSL/Cable etc..) fail. There is no reason however why you couldn't
> permanently use the modem input as a full time connection however - keep in
> mind, particularly if several clients are attempting to use the 'net
> simultaneously, that the available bandwidth (not a lot to begin with using
> dial-up) is shared between users, so they may complain it is painfully slow.
>
> As I also pointed out, if you ultimately get tired of internet at a snail's
> pace, you only need add a broadband modem (cable or DSL - simply plug it into
> the WAN port) and you have vastly improved 'net speed :-)
>
> The dial-up modem HAS to be an external modem that produces a standard serial
> output designed to plug into the serial ports available on most PCs to be usable
> on one of these 'router' type boxes. It has a plug on the back that your phone
> modem plugs into. An internal modem is totally unusable in this role.
>
> I usually STRONGLY recommend that nobody use internal modems of ANY kind
> (dial-up or broadband) regardless of the role, simply because the external world
> cabling on which your 'net connection flows is electronically a very savage
> environment - bringing this world directly into the PC by using an internal
> modem is just asking for trouble - an external modem provides a (somewhat)
> effective barrier protecting the PC from the worst that the outside world offers
> (transients, spikes, lightning etc..) I usually add additional surge protection
> on the incoming phone line as added insurance.
>
> As to integrating the router into your existing network, I presume you have a
> Cat5 Ethernet network - ie: each computer is plugged into the building cabling
> using a (usually) blue cable with plugs on it similar to that used for
> telephones, and that all these cables wind up plugging into a central 'box' (a
> hub or switch) somewhere in the building?
>
> If so, the 'net router is simply plugged into a spare port on this central
> hub/switch, some settings are made and the net will then appear as available to
> all clients on the network. For somebody who is familiar with the setup, not a
> difficult job.
>
> I must apologise as well, after having suggested SMC Barricade, I went and had a
> look, and in their infinite wisdom it would appear SMC have discontinued the
> models that had Serial Port backup. A quick search however reveales that D-Link
> certainly still make such a product (new model actually)
>
> Have a look here: http://www.dlink.com.au/default.aspx?FolderID=229
>
> I'm sure other manufacturers make similar products - I'm not recommending or
> endorsing the D-Link solution, they merely happened to be the first that showed
> up with a Google search :-)
>
> Hope this information helps.
>
> Calvin.
>
>
July 2, 2004 1:33:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Ann,

Sorry to hear that the finances are causing grief. As I suggested earlier have a
look at the software solutions from http://www.sygate.com and
http://www.wingate.com if you want to pursue the ICS route.

Unfortunately, these are also 'pay for' products, and cost wise, probably the
same (or more) than the hardware solution I suggested. Apparently there are
freeware/open source ICS solutions out there, but I've never researched this
area in detail.

Good luck.

Calvin.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:51:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Calvin,
can you please explain in more detail how to set up the NT machine to go on
the internet using the router that is connected to the DSL modem?

Regards,

Renato

"Calvin" wrote:

> Hi Ann,
>
> NO, NT4 does not have 'internet sharing' capability (some would say thank God
> !!) It is a very poor solution to the problem in any regard. There are thrid
> party add-on options from companies from SyGate or WinGate that can acheive the
> equivalent of the Win2k/XP ICS.
>
> I would suggest instead you investigate a solution like a SMC 'barricade' or
> similar router/hub. It can connect to a modem and manage the connection to the
> net (login etc) automatically, and make the net resouces available to a standard
> ethernet network without making any changes on any of the client machines
> (except the obvious stuff like the correct TCP/IP settings to use the
> barricadeas the default gateway etc.. All this is well documented with the info
> supplied with the box) They are not expensive (a couple of hundred dollars tops)
> and give you a far more controllable environment and you don't risk destablising
> machines having to run specialised software.
>
> Calvin.
>
>
March 12, 2005 6:39:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Otaner,

It's extremely simple - you may need to adjust the figures to suit the IP range
your router allocates for it's LAN, but in basic terms:

1. Configure the NT4 machine for TCP/IP protocol.

2. You can set the TCP/IP properties to 'automatically obtain an IP address'
(ie: use DHCP) and the machine should have immediate access to the internet.

3. If you prefer manually configuring and having static IPs for the NT4 machines:

IP: 192.168.1.2 (assuming use the most commonly used private class C address
space - most people do
Hostmask: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1

You may need enter the DNS IPs for your Internet Service provider as well in the
DNS tab on TCP/Ip propeties.

In summary - net access really is nothing more than a slight extension of your
existing LAN on NT4. If you don't understand how Local Area Networks work, or
how to configure them, find some expert assistnace.

Calvin.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 6:39:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Calvin,
Thank you for the info, i have one little problem i noticed that my NT
machine does not have DHCP installed and i don't have the disk to installed
it.

Otaner,

"Calvin" wrote:

> Hi Otaner,
>
> It's extremely simple - you may need to adjust the figures to suit the IP range
> your router allocates for it's LAN, but in basic terms:
>
> 1. Configure the NT4 machine for TCP/IP protocol.
>
> 2. You can set the TCP/IP properties to 'automatically obtain an IP address'
> (ie: use DHCP) and the machine should have immediate access to the internet.
>
> 3. If you prefer manually configuring and having static IPs for the NT4 machines:
>
> IP: 192.168.1.2 (assuming use the most commonly used private class C address
> space - most people do
> Hostmask: 255.255.255.0
> Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1
>
> You may need enter the DNS IPs for your Internet Service provider as well in the
> DNS tab on TCP/Ip propeties.
>
> In summary - net access really is nothing more than a slight extension of your
> existing LAN on NT4. If you don't understand how Local Area Networks work, or
> how to configure them, find some expert assistnace.
>
> Calvin.
>
>
March 13, 2005 1:38:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Otaner,

Looks like you'll have to stick with static IPs for the moment then, until you
can find a source of installation files.

Calvin.
!