Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Random comment about my new router...

Reply
Thread Tools

Random comment about my new router...

 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:44:04 +1300
> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
>>>> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
>>>> that the DHCP router allocated to them?
>>>
>>> You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
>>> them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
>>> grief.

>>
>> Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. I've been thinking
>> about assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do*
>> mean odd <g>) who expects DHCP.
>>
>> Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I
>> mean, USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3
>> periphs - however I *do* have a couple eSATA docks.
>>
>> Cheers,

> Hi
> Just configure up a small range of addresses for your dhcp network eg
> xxx.xxx.xxx.240 xxx.xxx.xxx.250, set your static ip's below
> xxx.xxx.xxx.240
>
> Can you not configure static ip's based on MAC address in the router?


Hi Malcolm,

Yeah, I'm sure that I saw that option in the 'advanced' settings. I might
have a poke around although they're a little tight with destructions - and
yes, I've downloaded the pdf 'manual'. It says at the beginning that 'this
document assumes a certain level of knowledge' or words to that effect.

Well, it assumes far more than I have. When I was reading it I had my
browser set to Google and spent more time on teh webs than with the manual.
I got a headache. :-/ Was going to prioritise gaming traffic but it'll do
as-is.

Hope you're well.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Kiwi wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:16:37 -0500, Malcolm
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Just configure up a small range of addresses for your dhcp network eg
>> xxx.xxx.xxx.240 xxx.xxx.xxx.250, set your static ip's below
>> xxx.xxx.xxx.240
>>
>> Can you not configure static ip's based on MAC address in the router?

>
> Hi Shaun,
>
> I would follow Malcolm's advice. That is the way my home network is
> setup. All my servers and printers have static addresses and I have a
> small DHCP scope available for our laptops and any guest machines.


Thanks Kiwi, I'll look into it when I have a spare hour or two.

I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but networking
largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.

Cheers,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
On 2012-10-10, ~misfit~ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but networking
> largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.
>

It has been said that networking is like herding cats. It does have a steep
learning curve and having a cetain mind set helps.
 
Reply With Quote
 
bambam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
"~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:k52ktc$g13$1@dont-
email.me:

> I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but networking
> largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.


Stanford University are running a free computer networking course-

http://class.stanford.edu/

Only problem, it's already started.

--
'A man's wealth is measured by what he doesn't need.' - H. D. Thoreau
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
On 10/10/2012 1:44 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
>>> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
>>> that the DHCP router allocated to them?

>>
>> You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
>> them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
>> grief.

>
> Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. I've been thinking about
> assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do* mean odd <g>)
> who expects DHCP.
>
> Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I mean,
> USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3 periphs - however I
> *do* have a couple eSATA docks.


I ordered one hoping to put it to my port multiplier external case that
I normally use on the desktop PC.

Anyway, the thing runs hot and having it in the laptop makes a huge dent
in the battery life. I got the one that is 54mm wide and has both esata
ports recessed into the PC hoping that I could just leave it in there so
I wouldnt use it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
On 10/8/2012 4:46 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a decent
> router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact that I'd been
> using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and had absolutely no
> complaints until....
>
> Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one machine to
> another and elected to do it via the network. Both machines are 'wired',
> using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man it was going slowly so I
> checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!
>
> Further checking resulted in the discovery that the router only supports
> 10/100 ethernet. Am I the only person who finds that odd in a new model that
> supports full 'n' wireless (rather than the '150n' cheapies) which is
> supposed to top out at 300Mbps and all of the computers in daily use in the
> house (most dated from 2006/7) have gigabit ethernet? Why would you make a
> router that has the fastest currently available wireless then knobble it
> with 4 ancient 10/100 ethernet ports when gigabit ethernet has been the
> standard for nearly a decade?
>
> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit 'switch'
> and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh webs to it. I
> dislike running multiple devices when it's possible that one could have
> handled all that is required.
>
> Just stream-of-consciousness rambling, a break from endless talking about
> Dotcom.....


I am more disgusted that they are still selling routers that only
support IPv4 - at a time when we already have ISPs performing carrier
grade NAT to get customers online with the lack of available IPv4 addresses.

Its getting to the stage where the only reliable way to get incoming
connections will be over IPv6 yet there is still hardware being sold
that doesnt support it.

IMO leaving it out is something worthy of a big warning on the box.

 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 22:48:16 UTC+13, Richard wrote:
<snip>

> I am more disgusted that they are still selling routers that only
> support IPv4 - at a time when we already have ISPs performing carrier
> grade NAT to get customers online with the lack of available IPv4 addresses.


IPv4 routers are as cheap as chips. Why would anyone bother paying extra for IPv6 that the don't yet need?

>
> Its getting to the stage where the only reliable way to get incoming
> connections will be over IPv6


It is? Really?

> yet there is still hardware being sold
> that doesnt support it.
>


Who so far has been inconvenienced by this issue?

>
> IMO leaving it out is something worthy of a big warning on the box.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Empson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2012
JohnO <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 22:48:16 UTC+13, Richard wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I am more disgusted that they are still selling routers that only
> > support IPv4 - at a time when we already have ISPs performing carrier
> > grade NAT to get customers online with the lack of available IPv4 addresses.

>
> IPv4 routers are as cheap as chips. Why would anyone bother paying extra
> for IPv6 that the don't yet need?
>
> >
> > Its getting to the stage where the only reliable way to get incoming
> > connections will be over IPv6

>
> It is? Really?


Not quite yet, but it can't be far off.

There are no more full blocks of 16 million IPv4 addresses available to
the Asia/Pacific region (or in other regions apart from Europe which has
one left, if I remember right). When the remaining addresses in their
current allocations run out, ISPs may be unable to get any more IPv4
addresses, unless they can negotiate with someone who no longer needs a
sufficiently large and contiguous range of addresses, which can be
reassigned.

Once the ISP can't get any more IPv4 addresses, new customers of the ISP
would have to share a single public IPv4 address, with NAT routing being
done at the ISP between several customers, and each customer being
allocated a private IP address (or range of private addresses) by the
ISP. It may reach the point where existing customers are forced into the
same arrangement.

Once the ISP is hosting NAT, it will be difficult to have open incoming
IPv4 ports, e.g. you can't have two customers on the same NATted IPv4
address both running HTTP servers on port 80, because there cannot be
two of the same port number open on a single IP address. One of them
would need to be assigned a different port number, which would
complicate things for some protocols/applications.

Outgoing connections would still be OK, since they use a dynamically
assigned port number and the NAT router can pick an arbitrary unused
port.

The main impact will be on people who want to run some kind of server at
home, which typically requires a port mapping rule in the NAT router.

It may also affect some applications like video chat which use UPnP or
similar protocols to request incoming ports from the NAT router. ISPs
might choose not to support UPnP as it is a potential security risk, and
that would prevent many applications working via IPv4.

At the rate of consumption of new public IPv4 addresses, some ISPs in
some countries are likely to strike this in less than a year.

It may take longer in New Zealand, as Internet usage here isn't growing
as fast as it is in some countries, and we may have a relatively large
pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses. (I don't know if this sort of
information is publically available - I expect it is commercially
sensitive.)

We will eventually reach a point where access to a public IPv4 address
costs more (due to limited supply), and only those who are running
servers at home and need IPv4 connections to them are likely to pay the
extra fee.

Most people will still have access to IPv4 addresses, but only for
outgoing connections and possibly for dynamically allocated incoming
connections via UPnP.

If you have a router which supports IPv6, and your computers and other
LAN-based devices also support IPv6, you can have both outgoing and
incoming IPv6 connections, no matter what your arrangements are for an
IPv4 address.

As long as your ISP supports IPv6, of course. I don't think we're quite
there yet with many of the local ISPs.

--
David Empson
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2012
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:46:11 +1300, (E-Mail Removed) (David
Empson) wrote:

>If you have a router which supports IPv6, and your computers and other
>LAN-based devices also support IPv6, you can have both outgoing and
>incoming IPv6 connections, no matter what your arrangements are for an
>IPv4 address.
>
>As long as your ISP supports IPv6, of course. I don't think we're quite
>there yet with many of the local ISPs.


There are several options if you want to do IPv6 right now. I am
connected via a tunnel from my router to Hurricane electric, for free:

http://www.tunnelbroker.net

It seems they have 250 New Zealand users:

http://www.tunnelbroker.net/usage/tu...by_country.php

There are a number of other free IPv6 providers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2012
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
> On 2012-10-10, ~misfit~ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but
>> networking largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.
>>

> It has been said that networking is like herding cats. It does have a
> steep learning curve and having a cetain mind set helps.


Yeah, I just don't have that mind-set unfortunately. I used to /sometimes/
be able to get a home network up and running when I was using Win 98SE and
originally had no trouble at all in doing so with XP. However, it seemed
that as each service pack and update came out it got increasingly difficult
(for me) to the point where I gave up.

Now I have a couple Win 7 machines I've used theose to set up a half-arsed
network as they seem to largely do it themselves. However not all of the XP
machines are part of the network. <shrug> Still, that's a win for me.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Math.random() and Math.round(Math.random()) and Math.floor(Math.random()*2) VK Javascript 15 05-02-2010 03:43 PM
random.random(), random not defined!? globalrev Python 4 04-20-2008 08:12 AM
problem GD and my package Random->Random::new john.swilting Perl Misc 13 08-09-2007 05:09 AM
? ELSE Conditional Comment / Using Conditional Comments Inside Other Tags To Comment Out Attributes Alec S. HTML 10 04-16-2005 02:21 AM
Random NOt random? Darren Clark ASP .Net 3 06-24-2004 05:23 PM



Advertisments