Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wireless 5040

Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
Anonymous
May 15, 2004 9:28:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

ok, I'm slightly confused here; can I plug a Linksys bridge into the Replay
and connect that to a Linksys wireless router ... and -- the important
part -- can the bridge connected to the router request a DHCP address ?
Does the Reply have to have a static IP address ? Or can it be assigned the
address of the DHCP server (wireless router) and let that handle the address
translation ?

The problem here is that I have 5 static IP addresses and the 5040 makes the
6th device I need on the network ...

Thanks ...

More about : wireless 5040

Anonymous
May 15, 2004 9:28:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Liz wrote:

> ok, I'm slightly confused here; can I plug a Linksys bridge into the Replay
> and connect that to a Linksys wireless router ... and -- the important
> part -- can the bridge connected to the router request a DHCP address ?
> Does the Reply have to have a static IP address ? Or can it be assigned the
> address of the DHCP server (wireless router) and let that handle the address
> translation ?
>
> The problem here is that I have 5 static IP addresses and the 5040 makes the
> 6th device I need on the network ...
>
> Thanks ...

You mean you're paying your ISP a fee for static ips??? Why? You only
need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built in
DHCP server.)


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
May 15, 2004 9:28:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

The Replay does not need a static address, it can get one from the linksys
router. The bridge does not need a static address either. But they do each
need their own IP address. I have chosen to fix the bridge address and allow
the replay to get its IP address from the router. It works for me.


"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:9rspc.15494034$Of.2583936@news.easynews.com...
>
> ok, I'm slightly confused here; can I plug a Linksys bridge into the
Replay
> and connect that to a Linksys wireless router ... and -- the important
> part -- can the bridge connected to the router request a DHCP address ?
> Does the Reply have to have a static IP address ? Or can it be assigned
the
> address of the DHCP server (wireless router) and let that handle the
address
> translation ?
>
> The problem here is that I have 5 static IP addresses and the 5040 makes
the
> 6th device I need on the network ...
>
> Thanks ...
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 5:14:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Tony D" <Nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:40a65eaf_1@127.0.0.1...
> Liz wrote:
>
> > ok, I'm slightly confused here; can I plug a Linksys bridge into the
Replay
> > and connect that to a Linksys wireless router ... and -- the important
> > part -- can the bridge connected to the router request a DHCP address ?
> > Does the Reply have to have a static IP address ? Or can it be assigned
the
> > address of the DHCP server (wireless router) and let that handle the
address
> > translation ?
> >
> > The problem here is that I have 5 static IP addresses and the 5040 makes
the
> > 6th device I need on the network ...
> >
> > Thanks ...
>
> You mean you're paying your ISP a fee for static ips??? Why?

because I run a couple of SMTP and NNTP servers; if you know a GOOD way to
point a domain at a NAT-addressed machine I'm all ears

> You only
> need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
> off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built in
> DHCP server.)

yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home setup
....
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 5:14:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 01:14:03 GMT, "Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote:

>
>"Tony D" <Nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:40a65eaf_1@127.0.0.1...
>> Liz wrote:
>>
>> > ok, I'm slightly confused here; can I plug a Linksys bridge into the
>Replay
>> > and connect that to a Linksys wireless router ... and -- the important
>> > part -- can the bridge connected to the router request a DHCP address ?
>> > Does the Reply have to have a static IP address ? Or can it be assigned
>the
>> > address of the DHCP server (wireless router) and let that handle the
>address
>> > translation ?
>> >
>> > The problem here is that I have 5 static IP addresses and the 5040 makes
>the
>> > 6th device I need on the network ...
>> >
>> > Thanks ...
>>
>> You mean you're paying your ISP a fee for static ips??? Why?
>
>because I run a couple of SMTP and NNTP servers; if you know a GOOD way to
>point a domain at a NAT-addressed machine I'm all ears
>
>> You only
>> need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
>> off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built in
>> DHCP server.)
>
>yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home setup
>...
>

That would be 253. 2 are not usable, and 1 is being used for the
router itself.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 5:23:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
news:40a6631a$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...

> The Replay does not need a static address, it can get one from the linksys
> router. The bridge does not need a static address either. But they do each
> need their own IP address. I have chosen to fix the bridge address and
allow
> the replay to get its IP address from the router. It works for me.

different but related question: what's bugging me is the cost of the
wireless hardware; the WRT54g router at about $90 or so is ok but close to
$200 for the WET54g bridge is kind of a pinch for this application ... with
the other bridge I'll need I'm going to end up spending more on the
networking than on the original Replay box ...

If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good performance
? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide but this
conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing Replay content on
network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be adequate for that purpose
?

also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd rather
stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked without any
problems for years
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 6:48:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Why do you need two bridges?

From:Liz
liz@tiredofspam.com

> "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
> news:40a6631a$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
>> The Replay does not need a static address, it can get one from the
>> linksys router. The bridge does not need a static address either.
>> But they do each need their own IP address. I have chosen to fix the
>> bridge address and allow the replay to get its IP address from the
>> router. It works for me.
>
> different but related question: what's bugging me is the cost of the
> wireless hardware; the WRT54g router at about $90 or so is ok but
> close to $200 for the WET54g bridge is kind of a pinch for this
> application ... with the other bridge I'll need I'm going to end up
> spending more on the networking than on the original Replay box ...
>
> If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
> performance ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide
> but this conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing
> Replay content on network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be
> adequate for that purpose ?
>
> also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd
> rather stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked
> without any problems for years
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 7:26:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:nEApc.25039$EH6.7389@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Why do you need two bridges?

it's not really relevant to my question; if I'm going to do this, though,
the 2nd bridge will go another machine just to get ready of some awkward
cabling ....



> From:Liz
> liz@tiredofspam.com
>
> > "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
> > news:40a6631a$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> >
> >> The Replay does not need a static address, it can get one from the
> >> linksys router. The bridge does not need a static address either.
> >> But they do each need their own IP address. I have chosen to fix the
> >> bridge address and allow the replay to get its IP address from the
> >> router. It works for me.
> >
> > different but related question: what's bugging me is the cost of the
> > wireless hardware; the WRT54g router at about $90 or so is ok but
> > close to $200 for the WET54g bridge is kind of a pinch for this
> > application ... with the other bridge I'll need I'm going to end up
> > spending more on the networking than on the original Replay box ...
> >
> > If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
> > performance ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide
> > but this conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing
> > Replay content on network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be
> > adequate for that purpose ?
> >
> > also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd
> > rather stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked
> > without any problems for years
>
>
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 8:51:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote in message
news:lqqda0trrhpae4de05vth5pkbphuvbrqpk@4ax.com...

> >> You only
> >> need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
> >> off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built
in
> >> DHCP server.)
> >
> >yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home
setup
> >...
> >
>
> That would be 253. 2 are not usable, and 1 is being used for the
> router itself.


Reminds me of the dialogue from a scene in "Mister Mom"

"So, what are you doing ?"

-- "oh, a litle re-wiring job .."

"ahah ... putting in 220 ?"

-- "uhhhh ... yeah, well 219, 220 ... whatever it takes"

:) 
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 2:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:Xnzpc.15517743$Of.2588827@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
> news:40a6631a$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
> > The Replay does not need a static address, it can get one from the
linksys
> > router. The bridge does not need a static address either. But they do
each
> > need their own IP address. I have chosen to fix the bridge address and
> allow
> > the replay to get its IP address from the router. It works for me.
>
> different but related question: what's bugging me is the cost of the
> wireless hardware; the WRT54g router at about $90 or so is ok but close to
> $200 for the WET54g bridge is kind of a pinch for this application ...
with
> the other bridge I'll need I'm going to end up spending more on the
> networking than on the original Replay box ...

You will find the bandwidth from the 5040 so disapointing that a wet11 will
be all you need.
>
> If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
performance
> ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide but this
> conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing Replay content on
> network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be adequate for that
purpose
> ?
>
> also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd
rather
> stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked without any
> problems for years
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 4:22:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

> If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good performance
> ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide but this
> conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing Replay content on
> network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be adequate for that purpose
> ?

802.11b stinks. Most users on the Replay forum at www.avsforum.com claim
b is ok for standard mode only and still yields occasional skipping.
There is extensive use of Linksys and Belkin and somebody there will
give you a heads-up on what works best.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 6:23:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 04:51:09 GMT, "Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote in message
>news:lqqda0trrhpae4de05vth5pkbphuvbrqpk@4ax.com...
>
>> >> You only
>> >> need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
>> >> off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built
>in
>> >> DHCP server.)
>> >
>> >yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home
>setup
>> >...
>> >
>>
>> That would be 253. 2 are not usable, and 1 is being used for the
>> router itself.
>
>
>Reminds me of the dialogue from a scene in "Mister Mom"
>
>"So, what are you doing ?"
>
>-- "oh, a litle re-wiring job .."
>
>"ahah ... putting in 220 ?"
>
>-- "uhhhh ... yeah, well 219, 220 ... whatever it takes"
>
>:) 
>
>
>

That's familiar, but how would it remind you of that? I just gave some
information. Does it have something to do with the various numbers
used for the AC power voltage (220, 225, 230, 240, etc...). For what I
said, the router does allow exactly 253 computers to be connected.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 10:21:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
news:40a77842$0$3058$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...

> You will find the bandwidth from the 5040 so disapointing that a wet11
will
> be all you need.

now are you talking about what the 5040 can deliver on the wire or what the
Replay server can deliver when you're getting the program guide and software
updates ? or both ?


> > If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
> performance
> > ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide but this
> > conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing Replay content
on
> > network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be adequate for that
> purpose
> > ?
> >
> > also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd
> rather
> > stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked without any
> > problems for years
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 10:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Getting the program guide and updates from the server is not an issue, not
too much data and it happens overnight usually. I'm talking about getting
recorded shows off of the replaytv.

"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:ViOpc.15573330$Of.2599265@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
> news:40a77842$0$3058$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
> > You will find the bandwidth from the 5040 so disapointing that a wet11
> will
> > be all you need.
>
> now are you talking about what the 5040 can deliver on the wire or what
the
> Replay server can deliver when you're getting the program guide and
software
> updates ? or both ?
>
>
> > > If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
> > performance
> > > ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide but this
> > > conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing Replay content
> on
> > > network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be adequate for that
> > purpose
> > > ?
> > >
> > > also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd
> > rather
> > > stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked without
any
> > > problems for years
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 2:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote in message
news:boffa0ta1m619p914dm86o281rn362a8ih@4ax.com...

> You only
> need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
> off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built
> in DHCP server.)

> > yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home
> > setup

> >> That would be 253. 2 are not usable, and 1 is being used for the
> >> router itself.

> >Reminds me of the dialogue from a scene in "Mister Mom"
> >
> >"So, what are you doing ?"
> >
> >-- "oh, a litle re-wiring job .."
> >
> >"ahah ... putting in 220 ?"
> >
> >-- "uhhhh ... yeah, well 219, 220 ... whatever it takes"
> >:) 

> That's familiar, but how would it remind you of that? I just gave some
> information. Does it have something to do with the various numbers
> used for the AC power voltage (220, 225, 230, 240, etc...).

no, Mark ... I was poking fun at myself for being sloppy with the # of
addresses available ... "oh, 254, 255 ..." ... as you point out, it's
exactly 253 ...

> For what I
> said, the router does allow exactly 253 computers to be connected.

ever seen anyone hook up 253 devices to a Linksys router ?
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 2:02:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:02:23 GMT, "Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote in message
>news:boffa0ta1m619p914dm86o281rn362a8ih@4ax.com...
>
>> You only
>> need 1 IP (external web address) and a Router (which will provide an
>> off-web address to dozens of computers on your network via its' built
>> in DHCP server.)
>
>> > yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home
>> > setup
>
>> >> That would be 253. 2 are not usable, and 1 is being used for the
>> >> router itself.
>
>> >Reminds me of the dialogue from a scene in "Mister Mom"
>> >
>> >"So, what are you doing ?"
>> >
>> >-- "oh, a litle re-wiring job .."
>> >
>> >"ahah ... putting in 220 ?"
>> >
>> >-- "uhhhh ... yeah, well 219, 220 ... whatever it takes"
>> >:) 
>
>> That's familiar, but how would it remind you of that? I just gave some
>> information. Does it have something to do with the various numbers
>> used for the AC power voltage (220, 225, 230, 240, etc...).
>
>no, Mark ... I was poking fun at myself for being sloppy with the # of
>addresses available ... "oh, 254, 255 ..." ... as you point out, it's
>exactly 253 ...
>

OK. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

>> For what I
>> said, the router does allow exactly 253 computers to be connected.
>
>ever seen anyone hook up 253 devices to a Linksys router ?
>

No, but that is the number of addresses abailable in the subnet.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
May 17, 2004 5:38:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Liz,

802.11b is just fine for getting info from the RTV servers, far better than
the internal modem. However, streaming is a different story. If there is
ZERO network traffic on your line, then the 11Mb/s will deliver a medium
quality recording with minimal pauses/skips (watchable). Have one system
receive email, and things go to hell in a handbasket pretty quick. 802.11G
will work just fine for streaming as long as you're in range of the AP for a
good link.

As far as the multiple IP addresses, I run 3 domains/websites and
corresponding mailservers off one static ip using Win Server 2003. It was
cheaper for me to buy the software rather than pay monthly for extra IP
addresses. Probably paid for itself in 10 months. Just an FYI.

--Mike

"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:ViOpc.15573330$Of.2599265@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
> news:40a77842$0$3058$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
>> You will find the bandwidth from the 5040 so disapointing that a wet11
> will
>> be all you need.
>
> now are you talking about what the 5040 can deliver on the wire or what
> the
> Replay server can deliver when you're getting the program guide and
> software
> updates ? or both ?
>
>
>> > If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
>> performance
>> > ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program guide but this
>> > conversation has kind of whetted my interest in viewing Replay content
> on
>> > network computers; how likely is "B" bridge to be adequate for that
>> purpose
>> > ?
>> >
>> > also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think I'd
>> rather
>> > stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's worked without any
>> > problems for years
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 12:50:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Speaking of recording quality, what do most people here use? I use
"standard" for time shifting and the picture seems to be as good as the
original from both digital and analog cable sources even when viewed on
a 73" projection TV.

From:mgg
mike@pacbell.net

> Liz,
>
> 802.11b is just fine for getting info from the RTV servers, far
> better than the internal modem. However, streaming is a different
> story. If there is ZERO network traffic on your line, then the 11Mb/s
> will deliver a medium quality recording with minimal pauses/skips
> (watchable). Have one system receive email, and things go to hell in
> a handbasket pretty quick. 802.11G will work just fine for streaming
> as long as you're in range of the AP for a good link.
>
> As far as the multiple IP addresses, I run 3 domains/websites and
> corresponding mailservers off one static ip using Win Server 2003. It
> was cheaper for me to buy the software rather than pay monthly for
> extra IP addresses. Probably paid for itself in 10 months. Just an
> FYI.
>
> --Mike
>
> "Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
> news:ViOpc.15573330$Of.2599265@news.easynews.com...
>>
>> "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
>> news:40a77842$0$3058$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>>
>>> You will find the bandwidth from the 5040 so disapointing that a
>>> wet11 will be all you need.
>>
>> now are you talking about what the 5040 can deliver on the wire or
>> what the
>> Replay server can deliver when you're getting the program guide and
>> software
>> updates ? or both ?
>>
>>
>>>> If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
>>>> performance ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program
>>>> guide but this conversation has kind of whetted my interest in
>>>> viewing Replay content on network computers; how likely is "B"
>>>> bridge to be adequate for that purpose ?
>>>>
>>>> also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think
>>>> I'd rather stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's
>>>> worked without any problems for years
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 8:04:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:50:54 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
wrote:

>Speaking of recording quality, what do most people here use? I use
>"standard" for time shifting and the picture seems to be as good as the
>original from both digital and analog cable sources even when viewed on
>a 73" projection TV.
>

Standard is good enough A/V quality, but I use Medium because it has
fewer A/V synchronization problems.

>From:mgg
>mike@pacbell.net
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> 802.11b is just fine for getting info from the RTV servers, far
>> better than the internal modem. However, streaming is a different
>> story. If there is ZERO network traffic on your line, then the 11Mb/s
>> will deliver a medium quality recording with minimal pauses/skips
>> (watchable). Have one system receive email, and things go to hell in
>> a handbasket pretty quick. 802.11G will work just fine for streaming
>> as long as you're in range of the AP for a good link.
>>
>> As far as the multiple IP addresses, I run 3 domains/websites and
>> corresponding mailservers off one static ip using Win Server 2003. It
>> was cheaper for me to buy the software rather than pay monthly for
>> extra IP addresses. Probably paid for itself in 10 months. Just an
>> FYI.
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>> "Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ViOpc.15573330$Of.2599265@news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> "Steve Weavers" <steve400@rcn.removetoreply.com> wrote in message
>>> news:40a77842$0$3058$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>>>
>>>> You will find the bandwidth from the 5040 so disapointing that a
>>>> wet11 will be all you need.
>>>
>>> now are you talking about what the 5040 can deliver on the wire or
>>> what the
>>> Replay server can deliver when you're getting the program guide and
>>> software
>>> updates ? or both ?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If I drop the spec down to a WET11 bridge will I still get good
>>>>> performance ? I imaging it's fine for dowloading the program
>>>>> guide but this conversation has kind of whetted my interest in
>>>>> viewing Replay content on network computers; how likely is "B"
>>>>> bridge to be adequate for that purpose ?
>>>>>
>>>>> also, anyone know what the POE adapter might cost ? btw, I think
>>>>> I'd rather stay with Linksys; it's simply a brand I know that's
>>>>> worked without any problems for years
>

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 10:04:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"mgg" <mike@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mIUpc.67860$Fd6.19075@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...

> Liz,
>
> 802.11b is just fine for getting info from the RTV servers, far better
than
> the internal modem. However, streaming is a different story. If there is
> ZERO network traffic on your line, then the 11Mb/s will deliver a medium
> quality recording with minimal pauses/skips (watchable). Have one system
> receive email, and things go to hell in a handbasket pretty quick. 802.11G
> will work just fine for streaming as long as you're in range of the AP for
a
> good link.

ok .. gotcha ...

> As far as the multiple IP addresses, I run 3 domains/websites and
> corresponding mailservers off one static ip using Win Server 2003. It was
> cheaper for me to buy the software rather than pay monthly for extra IP
> addresses. Probably paid for itself in 10 months. Just an FYI.

let me get clear on this one, though ... are you talking about all IIS
(including mail server) ? I don't use IIS for mail (Mercury is free and
excellent); is Win 2003 adding something new to the party ? I have it
sitting here (uninstalled) ... Win 2000/IIS supports multiple domains ...
are you using someone else's DNS and pointing all your domains at that
single static IP ? How many physical machines are you using as servers ? If
I have domain1.com on DELL1 and domain2.com on HP1 and DNS points both
domains to 200.200.200.200 what software is figuring out how to route
requests to domain1.com and domain2.com ?

I'm not really concerned with what I pay for the 5 static IPs (not much) but
there may be other useful options if I can understand what kind of
configuration you're describing here ....

thanks ...............
Anonymous
May 18, 2004 3:00:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> shaped the electrons to say:
>because I run a couple of SMTP and NNTP servers; if you know a GOOD way to
>point a domain at a NAT-addressed machine I'm all ears

Multiple physical boxes or one box with multiple domains on one box?
The latter isn't hard, the former I don't really know of any good fix.

>yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home setup
>...

254 actually for a /24 netmask - the low (.0) and high (.255) are
reserved. But you may be able to change the netmask on the router to
have even more.

-MZ, RHCE #806199299900541, ex-CISSP #3762
--
<URL:mailto:megazoneatmegazone.org> Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 508-755-4098
<URL:http://www.megazone.org/&gt; <URL:http://www.eyrie-productions.com/&gt; Eris
Anonymous
May 18, 2004 3:00:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 23:00:23 GMT, newsREMOVE@THISmegazone.org (MegaZone)
wrote:

>"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> shaped the electrons to say:
>>because I run a couple of SMTP and NNTP servers; if you know a GOOD way to
>>point a domain at a NAT-addressed machine I'm all ears
>
>Multiple physical boxes or one box with multiple domains on one box?
>The latter isn't hard, the former I don't really know of any good fix.
>
>>yeah, 255 of them (or is it 254?) ... works great for a typical home setup
>>...
>
>254 actually for a /24 netmask - the low (.0) and high (.255) are
>reserved. But you may be able to change the netmask on the router to
>have even more.
>

You're forgetting about the one for the router itself, as I already
answered. It's probably .1, so 2-254 (minus any for other network
devices like bridges) are available for computers).

>-MZ, RHCE #806199299900541, ex-CISSP #3762

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
May 19, 2004 7:36:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Hi Liz,

I use IIS just for the webservers, I use Argosoft for the mailserver. My
setup isn't mission critical, but here's what I have.

I have one machine running Win Server 2003 that hosts 3 websites. Two are
personal, and the third is for my business (that doesn't need one) and AAMOF
is not even built yet. However I *do* use my business domain for email. For
DNS I use Simple DNS (locally) and one of the free sites for the back-up.
Your setup will obviously allow you to have DNS servers on different (local)
IPs, but my goal was to use only one.

This setup works perfectly for me, and if I was only running a mailserver,
Argo does the job for many doamins without the need for Win Server 2003. It
*has* to be in conjunction with running your own primary DNS server though.
Simple DNS really is the key here, and even with multiple boxes, I'm sure it
can be set up to direct traffic to the appropriate private IP.

So, WS 2003 hasn't really added anything to the mix as far as I can see, but
in your case, it's running your own DNS server that's the key.

--Mike

"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:B87qc.15640082$Of.2608557@news.easynews.com...
>
> "mgg" <mike@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:mIUpc.67860$Fd6.19075@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> 802.11b is just fine for getting info from the RTV servers, far better
> than
>> the internal modem. However, streaming is a different story. If there is
>> ZERO network traffic on your line, then the 11Mb/s will deliver a medium
>> quality recording with minimal pauses/skips (watchable). Have one system
>> receive email, and things go to hell in a handbasket pretty quick.
>> 802.11G
>> will work just fine for streaming as long as you're in range of the AP
>> for
> a
>> good link.
>
> ok .. gotcha ...
>
>> As far as the multiple IP addresses, I run 3 domains/websites and
>> corresponding mailservers off one static ip using Win Server 2003. It was
>> cheaper for me to buy the software rather than pay monthly for extra IP
>> addresses. Probably paid for itself in 10 months. Just an FYI.
>
> let me get clear on this one, though ... are you talking about all IIS
> (including mail server) ? I don't use IIS for mail (Mercury is free and
> excellent); is Win 2003 adding something new to the party ? I have it
> sitting here (uninstalled) ... Win 2000/IIS supports multiple domains ...
> are you using someone else's DNS and pointing all your domains at that
> single static IP ? How many physical machines are you using as servers ?
> If
> I have domain1.com on DELL1 and domain2.com on HP1 and DNS points both
> domains to 200.200.200.200 what software is figuring out how to route
> requests to domain1.com and domain2.com ?
>
> I'm not really concerned with what I pay for the 5 static IPs (not much)
> but
> there may be other useful options if I can understand what kind of
> configuration you're describing here ....
>
> thanks ...............
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 9:06:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

"mgg" <mike@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:VCAqc.50656$oF1.2245@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi Liz,
>
> I use IIS just for the webservers, I use Argosoft for the mailserver. My
> setup isn't mission critical, but here's what I have.
>
> I have one machine running Win Server 2003 that hosts 3 websites. Two are
> personal, and the third is for my business (that doesn't need one) and
AAMOF
> is not even built yet. However I *do* use my business domain for email.
For
> DNS I use Simple DNS (locally) and one of the free sites for the back-up.
> Your setup will obviously allow you to have DNS servers on different
(local)
> IPs, but my goal was to use only one.
>
> This setup works perfectly for me, and if I was only running a mailserver,
> Argo does the job for many doamins without the need for Win Server 2003.
It
> *has* to be in conjunction with running your own primary DNS server
though.
> Simple DNS really is the key here, and even with multiple boxes, I'm sure
it
> can be set up to direct traffic to the appropriate private IP.
>
> So, WS 2003 hasn't really added anything to the mix as far as I can see,
but
> in your case, it's running your own DNS server that's the key.

thanks for the comments; Simple DNS looks like a nice product ... now I
have to contemplate whether I want to become enough of a DNS guru to make
sure I know how to troubleshoot the inevitable glitches that come up (no
matter how simple it is)

if you're using it in conjunction with your mail server, you must be
exposing it to all Internet requests, no ? does it get all kinds of inbound
traffic ?
May 20, 2004 12:32:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

>>if you're using it in conjunction with your mail server, you must be
exposing it to all Internet requests, no ? does it get all kinds of inbound
traffic ?<<

Port 53 is open for DNS, but since it's a "private" nameserver, it normally
only gets hit when someone sends or receives email (from inside or outside
of the domain). Sure, I get requests from search engines, and others
occasionally to resolve the names, but it's not even noticeable. The router,
MacAfee, and constant updates from MS have kept the nasties away so far...

When I started on this little project a few of years ago, I knew exactly
*zero* about DNS, IIS, mailservers, etc. As it turns out, the DNS was the
easiest part of the whole thing...for me anyway <g>. Simple DNS is just
that...simple.

--Mike

"Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:YtMqc.4837670$iA2.564443@news.easynews.com...
>
> "mgg" <mike@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:VCAqc.50656$oF1.2245@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>> Hi Liz,
>>
>> I use IIS just for the webservers, I use Argosoft for the mailserver. My
>> setup isn't mission critical, but here's what I have.
>>
>> I have one machine running Win Server 2003 that hosts 3 websites. Two are
>> personal, and the third is for my business (that doesn't need one) and
> AAMOF
>> is not even built yet. However I *do* use my business domain for email.
> For
>> DNS I use Simple DNS (locally) and one of the free sites for the back-up.
>> Your setup will obviously allow you to have DNS servers on different
> (local)
>> IPs, but my goal was to use only one.
>>
>> This setup works perfectly for me, and if I was only running a
>> mailserver,
>> Argo does the job for many doamins without the need for Win Server 2003.
> It
>> *has* to be in conjunction with running your own primary DNS server
> though.
>> Simple DNS really is the key here, and even with multiple boxes, I'm sure
> it
>> can be set up to direct traffic to the appropriate private IP.
>>
>> So, WS 2003 hasn't really added anything to the mix as far as I can see,
> but
>> in your case, it's running your own DNS server that's the key.
>
> thanks for the comments; Simple DNS looks like a nice product ... now I
> have to contemplate whether I want to become enough of a DNS guru to make
> sure I know how to troubleshoot the inevitable glitches that come up (no
> matter how simple it is)
>
> if you're using it in conjunction with your mail server, you must be
> exposing it to all Internet requests, no ? does it get all kinds of
> inbound
> traffic ?
>
>
>
!