My parents have a network of three PCs (two desktop and one laptop) which
all use XP Home and are connected by a simple 4-port 10 Mbps hub (ie not a
switch or router). Currently, these connect to the internet by modems in
each PC (obviously they can't use the same phone line simultaneously!) and
have static private IP addresses for the internal network.

Their ISP is Force 9 which will offer broadband once it is physically
available from BT: Force 9 have two main service/equipment packages - one
with an ADSL modem (USB or PCI) and the other with an ADSL router.

They don't anticipate that they'll ever want to turn any of the PCs into web
servers.


Broadband will soon become available. Can I check that my proposed solutions
will work?

Based on information on http://www.adslguide.org.uk/guide/connections.asp I
think they have two choices:

- get one ADSL modem (PCI or USB) for one of the PCs and use Internet
Connection Sharing to allow the other two to access the internet via the
ADSL PC

- get an external ADSL router (the one that Force 9 offer has one ADSL port
and *one* Ethernet port) and connect this to the existing Ethernet hub

Solution 1 is likely to be cheaper but will require the ADSL PC to be left
turned on.

Solution 2 will be a little more expensive (only about £20 more on setup
cost, same monthly cost).


Hub or Switch
-------------

Am I right in understanding that a hub will send internet traffic to all the
PCs whereas a switch will send it only to the PC that requested it,
resulting in higher throughput between one PC and another because the other
PCs' cards are not bombarded with unwanted traffic?


Address Mapping
---------------

Presumably there needs to be some mapping between the IP addresses used on
the three computers' Ethernet cards and the external IP address allocated by
the ISP for the broadband connection. I presume that the ADSL router handles
this, providing it has NAT (Network Address Translation). Should the PCs
still be given static IP addresses (in one of the standard private
addressing ranges 10.0.0.0 - 10.254.254.254, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.254.254 or
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.254.254) or would an ADSL router act as a local DHCP
server?


Firewall
--------

One PC has Norton Internet Security (firewall and anti-virus) whereas the
other two only have Norton Anti-Virus. Solution 1 would presumably allow
shared access to go via the firewall software (assuming it's installed on
the ADSL PC), whereas Solution 2 would require two new copies of NIS. Is the
built-in XP firewall software an acceptable alternative to NIS for those two
PCs?


Wireless
--------

If they ever wanted to connect the laptop by wireless (to allow it to roam
around the house) I presume they'd need a wireless access point connected to
the Ethernet hub and a wireless card in the laptop. How should the wireless
points be configured - infrastructure (access point) or ad-hoc? I imagine
some form of encryption/authentication is advisable to stop neighbours being
able to "steal" the bandwidth!


House wiring
------------

Is there any restriction on telephone wiring in the house? They have two
BT-installed sockets (one an extension of the other) with a splitter from
one via a free-standing extension phone cable to a splitter in the room
where the computers a

BT socket 1 ---------------- phone 1

BT socket 2 --- splitter --- phone 2
|
+------------------ extension cable --- splitter --- PC 1
|
+------- PC 1

I presume they'll need two microfilters (one for each phone) together with
RJ-11 (male) / BT (female) converters at each end of the extension cable to
convert it into a RJ-11 to RJ-11 cable. The splitters will no longer be
used.



Are there any other issues that will need to be considered?

Martin Underwood wrote:

Based on information on http://www.adslguide.org.uk/guide/connections.asp I
think they have two choices:

- get one ADSL modem (PCI or USB) for one of the PCs and use Internet
Connection Sharing to allow the other two to access the Internet via the
ADSL PC

- get an external ADSL router (the one that Force 9 offer has one ADSL port
and *one* Ethernet port) and connect this to the existing Ethernet hub

Solution 1 is likely to be cheaper but will require the ADSL PC to be left
turned on.

Solution 2 will be a little more expensive (only about ?20 more on setup
cost, same monthly cost).

Go for solution 2 - better security (you can get a router with a
firewall built in) and simple enough to setup. Also as you say, no need
to make sure that you have the sharing PC turned on all the time.

Hub or Switch
-------------

Am I right in understanding that a hub will send Internet traffic to all the
PCs whereas a switch will send it only to the PC that requested it,

Yes that's about it - a hub is a repeater - what comes in one one port
goes out on all the others. The PCs simply ignore stuff not addressed to
them.

resulting in higher throughput between one PC and another because the other
PCs' cards are not bombarded with unwanted traffic?

The only time a switch makes a big difference is when you have several
PCs talking to several others. For "One to One" links the speeds are the
same. The fact that other PCs get to hear traffic between PC A and B
does not slow the speed of the A to B traffic IYSWIM.

Also in the case of Internet access the speed limitation will be that of
your ADSL connection not the Ethernet that connects the computers to it.

Address Mapping
---------------

Presumably there needs to be some mapping between the IP addresses used on
the three computers' Ethernet cards and the external IP address allocated by
the ISP for the broadband connection. I presume that the ADSL router handles
this, providing it has NAT (Network Address Translation). Should the PCs

All ADSL routers you are likely find, have the option of NAT

still be given static IP addresses (in one of the standard private
addressing ranges 10.0.0.0 - 10.254.254.254, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.254.254 or
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.254.254) or would an ADSL router act as a local DHCP
server?

I would leave it as you have it. Most routers do support DHCP for the
local network as well - but its an option that you can turn on or off
according to your need. Since you already have addresses assigned and
setup there is no real advantage to switching to DHCP.

Note also that WinXP does seem to generate more Internet traffic for
reverse DNS requests when you have DHCP setup for the local network.

Firewall
--------

One PC has Norton Internet Security (firewall and anti-virus) whereas the
other two only have Norton Anti-Virus. Solution 1 would presumably allow
shared access to go via the firewall software (assuming it's installed on
the ADSL PC), whereas Solution 2 would require two new copies of NIS. Is the
built-in XP firewall software an acceptable alternative to NIS for those two
PCs?

The built in XP firewall can only do incoming packet filtering - so it
buys you nothing that you don't get from NAT by itself or even a basic
firewall capability in a router.

NIS does more than the basic XP firewall because it can also offer
"egress" filtering - i.e. prevent applications on the PCs making
unwanted outbound connections. Having said that there are other free
alternatives to NIS that will do the same job (ZoneAlarm etc).

A router with a good firewall will also be able to do egress filtering.
You can also start from the premiss of setting the router to deny all
traffic except that you explicitly allow.

Wireless
--------

If they ever wanted to connect the laptop by wireless (to allow it to roam
around the house) I presume they'd need a wireless access point connected to
the Ethernet hub and a wireless card in the laptop. How should the wireless

Correct

points be configured - infrastructure (access point) or ad-hoc? I imagine

Infrastructure mode in this case.

some form of encryption/authentication is advisable to stop neighbours being
able to "steal" the bandwidth!

There are several lines of defence here. Some access points can be set
to block access from all MAC addresses (i.e. all wireless LAN cards)
except those that you explicitly allow. That would exclude anyone else
from connecting.

You can also enable WEP for greater security and protection from
eavesdropping. While there are flaws in the WEP encryption standard, it
it probably good enough for your purposes in a domestic environment
since you are unlikely to be passing enough data over the link to allow
a realistic attempt to be made to "crack" it.

House wiring
------------

Is there any restriction on telephone wiring in the house? They have two
BT-installed sockets (one an extension of the other) with a splitter from
one via a free-standing extension phone cable to a splitter in the room
where the computers a

BT socket 1 ---------------- phone 1

BT socket 2 --- splitter --- phone 2
|
+------------------ extension cable --- splitter --- PC 1
|
+------- PC 1

I presume they'll need two microfilters (one for each phone) together with
RJ-11 (male) / BT (female) converters at each end of the extension cable to
convert it into a RJ-11 to RJ-11 cable. The splitters will no longer be
used.

If you have only two phones then a "plug in" splitter on each phone will
be fine.

You could do:

BT socket 2 --- ADSL splitter --- ADSL Router
|
|
splitter --- phone 2
|
+------------ extension cable --- splitter --- PC1
|
+------- PC 1

(I have not shown the Ethernet hub or wiring on the diagram for simplicity)

Note that you can connect several phones / modems / faxes etc to a
single filter - you do not need one filter per device.

The router does not actually need a filter itself - you can often use
one of your modem leads with a RJ11 to BT plug for connecting the router
directly to a phone socket if that makes it simpler to arrange.

You may also find that there is less use for the modems in the PCs if
all they were used for is Internet access. Having said that its worth
maintaining the capability for them to dial out so you have a backup for
the times that ADSL goes tits up, or you want to send a fax etc.

Are there any other issues that will need to be considered?

You seem to have most of them covered!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
My parents have a network of three PCs (two desktop and one laptop) which
all use XP Home and are connected by a simple 4-port 10 Mbps hub (ie not a
switch or router). Currently, these connect to the internet by modems in
each PC (obviously they can't use the same phone line simultaneously!) and
have static private IP addresses for the internal network.

Their ISP is Force 9 which will offer broadband once it is physically
available from BT: Force 9 have two main service/equipment packages - one
with an ADSL modem (USB or PCI) and the other with an ADSL router.

They don't anticipate that they'll ever want to turn any of the PCs into
web
servers.


Broadband will soon become available. Can I check that my proposed
solutions
will work?

Based on information on http://www.adslguide.org.uk/guide/connections.asp
I
think they have two choices:

- get one ADSL modem (PCI or USB) for one of the PCs and use Internet
Connection Sharing to allow the other two to access the internet via the
ADSL PC

- get an external ADSL router (the one that Force 9 offer has one ADSL
port
and *one* Ethernet port) and connect this to the existing Ethernet hub

Solution 1 is likely to be cheaper but will require the ADSL PC to be left
turned on.

Solution 2 will be a little more expensive (only about £20 more on setup
cost, same monthly cost).

Go for the router option - either the one plusnet offer you (which is a
solwise one I think www.solwise.co.uk) or just get the one you want. Nothing
bad about the solwise as far as I know though.


Hub or Switch
-------------

Am I right in understanding that a hub will send internet traffic to all
the
PCs whereas a switch will send it only to the PC that requested it,
resulting in higher throughput between one PC and another because the
other
PCs' cards are not bombarded with unwanted traffic?

Yes. In practice though with the adsl being the bottleneck and most hubs
being 100mbs there isn't an issue (not with so few pcs). Switches are
certainly prefered because of what you have said in a backbone or large
network.



Address Mapping
---------------

Presumably there needs to be some mapping between the IP addresses used on
the three computers' Ethernet cards and the external IP address allocated
by
the ISP for the broadband connection. I presume that the ADSL router
handles
this, providing it has NAT (Network Address Translation). Should the PCs
still be given static IP addresses (in one of the standard private
addressing ranges 10.0.0.0 - 10.254.254.254, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.254.254
or
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.254.254) or would an ADSL router act as a local DHCP
server?

Yes, you can give the PC's addresses like 192.168.0.1-3 or whatever as
above. If you don't need to do this though the router will act as a DHCP
server. Obviously it is better to have static if you want to be able to
access any of the machines from the net with port forwarding (e.g. port 80
on your external IP address to an PC running IIS). If this doesn't matter
then your router will just have its internal and external address and the
pc's allocated by the router and it should work fine.


Firewall
--------

One PC has Norton Internet Security (firewall and anti-virus) whereas the
other two only have Norton Anti-Virus. Solution 1 would presumably allow
shared access to go via the firewall software (assuming it's installed on
the ADSL PC), whereas Solution 2 would require two new copies of NIS. Is
the
built-in XP firewall software an acceptable alternative to NIS for those
two
PCs?

The XP one maybe...this really goes back to the thing about choosing your
own router. NAT in itself is some protection and may well be enough (because
the pcs don't have a publically accessible ip address you can't get into
them directly from the net in theory) - you make that decision. Personally
because I leave all my machines on all the time and wanted something a bit
more secure for peace of mind.

For this I went for the Vigor 2600 which has a 4 port switch built in - it
is kinda the higher end of these standard routers I suppose and you pay for
the built in firewall and VPN etc - but I do like it.


Wireless
--------

If they ever wanted to connect the laptop by wireless (to allow it to roam
around the house) I presume they'd need a wireless access point connected
to
the Ethernet hub and a wireless card in the laptop. How should the
wireless
points be configured - infrastructure (access point) or ad-hoc? I imagine
some form of encryption/authentication is advisable to stop neighbours
being
able to "steal" the bandwidth!


I wouldn't worry about bandwith but files could be an issue. If you have
firewalls on each machine then why not let them (you could split the cost).
But yes, they have encryption built in. You can get combined ADSLRouters \
Wireless access points or buy one seperatly and plug it in (but you don't
have any room on the hub now).

House wiring
------------

Is there any restriction on telephone wiring in the house? They have two
BT-installed sockets (one an extension of the other) with a splitter from
one via a free-standing extension phone cable to a splitter in the room
where the computers a

BT socket 1 ---------------- phone 1

BT socket 2 --- splitter --- phone 2
|
+------------------ extension cable --- splitter --- PC
1
|
+------- PC
1

All phones \ standard modems need to be filtered. I would suggest one before
phone 1 and one before the splitter of phone2.

You would need to run the adsl back to socket 1 or two if you did this. The
alternative is to filter just before phone 2 and PC1's modem????? - i'm
confused by your diagram that pc1 has two connectsinos - I can only take it
to mean one adsl and one normal modem.

If splitter = filter then you will need one before phone 1 but otherwise
fine.


I presume they'll need two microfilters (one for each phone) together with
RJ-11 (male) / BT (female) converters at each end of the extension cable
to
convert it into a RJ-11 to RJ-11 cable. The splitters will no longer be
used.

That makes sense although you won't need any convertors. The microfilters
have a bt plug bit and an rj11female for the adsl. If you mean using an
exisitng bt phone cable to extend the adsl as opposed to microfilter at the
end of the extentino cable then yes I think you are right. but it may be
easier to use a microfilter and then you have the option of a phone near the
pc.



Are there any other issues that will need to be considered?

I think you have understood quite well.

Sam




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Sent from \\STN1 on HOMENET1 by user Sam Albrow 'Administrator'.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003