From: Digest To: "OS/2GenAu Digest" Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:00:05 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 365 Reply-To: X-List-Unsubscribe: www.os2site.com/list/ ************************************************** Monday 10 June 2002 Number 365 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 [os2genau] ADSL modem vs ADSL router : Paul Smedley" 2 Re: [os2genau] ADSL modem vs ADSL router : Daryl Pilkington" 3 Re: [os2genau] ADSL modem vs ADSL router : Paul Smedley" 4 Re: [os2genau] Virtual PC for OS/2 - needs network? : Nathan Stewart **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:46:52 +1100 From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: [os2genau] ADSL modem vs ADSL router Hi All, I'm about to switch from cable internet to ADSL and need to buy an ADSL modem. The options I'm considering are: 1) D-Link DSL-300 Ethernet ADSL Modem (http://www.dlink dot com dot au/products/broadband/dsl300/), and my existing gateway PC with 2 NIC's installed and Injoy Firewall. Currently I only have 2 PC's on the LAN, so just use a X-over cable between the 2 PC's. 2) D-Link DSL-504 Ethernet ADSL/Modem/Router/4 port switch (http://www.dlink dot com dot au/products/broadband/dsl504/) to replace Injoy Firewall on the gateway, and also add the capability to have more than 2 PC's on the LAN, and give the flexibility that if the gateway PC is down for some reason, the 2nd can still access the Internet. Option 2 is around $A 90 ($US 50) more expensive. An added complication is taht I've just registered my own domain, and plan on running my own mail server. Currently the gateway PC has a real ISP, and this would continue with option 1, but with option 2, the server would have only a private IP. Does anyone know if the D-Link routers can be set to route traffic on certain ports (ie 21, 110, 80, 25) to a specific pc on the private LAN? I'd also presume that the router has a built in web page containing the real IP that I could retrieve, parse, and update dyndns dot org and zoneedit dot com with? Does using Injoy Firewall AND a router make any sense? Thanks for any advice, Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:45:18 +1000 (EST) From: "Daryl Pilkington" Subject: Re: [os2genau] ADSL modem vs ADSL router Hi Paul, The DSL-300 is probably the best ADSL modem in its class. Graham Norton uses 2 of these & they just work. I personally use an Alcatel SpeedTouch Home, with no problems, but I know ISP's have had "Dead-on-Arrival" problems with these devices. The DSL-504 is a nice, inexpensive product since it includes an integral 4 port switch. These sort of devices are becoming more & more common. It will replace InJoy FireWall for basic functions, however it won't do more sophisticated high-end functions like dynamic DNS & IPSec, required for VPN. The device is ideal for a SOHO environment where 3 or 4 network devices need to be connected together & require basic Internet acccess. The DSL-504 would be ideal for Graham's home environment, as he needs a switch to connect a few network devices together & basic Internet connectivity. Perhaps you could sideways shift some technology & purchase the DSL-504 for Graham in exchange for his DSL-300. You'd probably be better served with: DSL-300 ($315) InJoy FireWall running on a dedicated PC. (???) Skylink 8 port switch ($120) It gives you room to grow. Regarding a fallback solution, just install InJoy FireWall on both PC's & if your gateway is down, just connect the DSL-300 directly to the switch & run InJoy FireWall on the other PC. On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:46:52 +1100, Paul Smedley wrote: > >I'm about to switch from cable internet to ADSL and need to buy an ADSL modem. > >The options I'm considering are: > >1) D-Link DSL-300 Ethernet ADSL Modem >(http://www.dlink dot com dot au/products/broadband/dsl300/), and my existing gateway PC >with 2 NIC's installed and Injoy Firewall. Currently I only have 2 PC's on the LAN, so just >use a X-over cable between the 2 PC's. > >2) D-Link DSL-504 Ethernet ADSL/Modem/Router/4 port switch >(http://www.dlink dot com dot au/products/broadband/dsl504/) to replace Injoy Firewall on the >gateway, and also add the capability to have more than 2 PC's on the LAN, and give >the flexibility that if the gateway PC is down for some reason, the 2nd can still access >the Internet. > Regards, Daryl Pilkington //// The PC-Therapist, Business Computing Integration O OS/2 Warp, Redhat Linux, DB2 IBM Certified Systems Expert email: darylpatpc-therapist dot com dot au Mob: 0425-251-300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:30:06 -0400 From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: Re: [os2genau] ADSL modem vs ADSL router G'day Daryl, On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:45:18 +1000, Daryl Pilkington wrote: >The DSL-300 is probably the best ADSL modem in its class. >Graham Norton uses 2 of these & they just work. >I personally use an Alcatel SpeedTouch Home, with no problems, but I >know ISP's have had "Dead-on-Arrival" problems with these devices. OK - good to know Graham is using D-Link hardware with no problems! >The DSL-504 is a nice, inexpensive product since it includes an >integral 4 port switch. Yeah - that's the main reason it's attractive - gives me the flexibility to add more PC's. >These sort of devices are becoming more & more common. >It will replace InJoy FireWall for basic functions, however it won't do >more sophisticated high-end functions like dynamic DNS & IPSec, >required for VPN. Well I don't need VPN so I'm thinking the router will do me well :) >The device is ideal for a SOHO environment where 3 or 4 network devices >need to be connected together & require basic Internet acccess. I currently have 2 PC's, but could end up with a work laptop or even buy one myself. >The DSL-504 would be ideal for Graham's home environment, as he needs a >switch to connect a few network devices together & basic Internet >connectivity. Perhaps you could sideways shift some technology & >purchase the DSL-504 for Graham in exchange for his DSL-300. If I don't decide to buy the DSL-504 for myself that is :) >You'd probably be better served with: >DSL-300 ($315) >InJoy FireWall running on a dedicated PC. (???) >Skylink 8 port switch ($120) Well I don't have a dedicated PC - am currently using a machine as a workstation/gateway which is a PITA if I need to work on that machine as the internet goes down. Can't really justify an 8-port switch for 2 pc's :) >It gives you room to grow. Can't see me growing that much :) Thanks for the tips, Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:05:19 +1000 From: Nathan Stewart Subject: Re: [os2genau] Virtual PC for OS/2 - needs network? Ed Durrant wrote: >go checkout the forums at www.innotek.de - I think I've seen this posted >there. By the way, you'll need to be at least at FP15 (or MCP) - there were >multiple problems for VPC/2 with FP14 and earlier OS levels. Not sure what >level this equates to under eCs. > eCs works fine out of the box (not that one ever seems to receive eCs in a box) > >You might also check that you have localhost defined as 127.0.0.1. > Thanks, although the problem does not seem to be the IP address so much as the existence of a network of any kind. I will run a few test and confirm this. (Just to explain what I mean: If you install a network protocol, even using a loopback network adapter then VPC/2 starts just fine; otherwise it will not start at all. A real-live network does not need to be present. (N.B. At this stage these are not tested conclusions.)) Regards, Nathan Stewart. > >Cheers/2 > >Ed. > >Nathan Stewart wrote: > > >>Has anyone else experienced the following? >> >>Virtual PC for OS/2 will not start correctly unless a network is present >>(even a dialup connection). If the connection is not there it will hang >>with an "Unhandled Exception Error". >> >>The machine is running with eComStation. >> >>I'm interested to hear you thoughts. >> >>Regards, >> >>Nathan Stewart. >> >> >> >> > > > > [attachments have been removed] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------