On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Steve Lee wrote:
> > > If you don't need/want the firewall of A, why not plug the DSL
> > > into the (or a) hub, exposing both machines to the net? I only have 1 IP,
> > > so I have not tried this, but I'm pretty sure this will work just fine.
> >
> > I tried but it didn't work. I think i need a hardware router if i do that,
> > since the data coming through the DSL dosen't now where to go.
Ok, I verified this with my neighbour who does this (but uses dynamic
IPs). It works fine. Here is a recipe to do it.
1. identify the cable going from your DSL modem to machine A.
2. unplug it from A, and plug it into the UPLINK port of your hub
3. get a regular cat5 cable and plug one end into A, and the other into
the hub
with this configuration, A should continue to work as before (and so
should the others infact, assuming you had them working in some fashion).
If the above works, then change B's IP to the static one, and it should
now be on the net just like A. If you have another hub (and I think this
can be doen with just a single hub too) you can still stick soem boxes
behind the firewall of A if you wish.
existing:
DSL -- A(real ip) -- hub -- B(192.168.1.x)
new:
DSL -- hub -- A(real ip) [ -- hub2 -- C(192.168.1.x) ]
|
+---- B(real ip)
I'd love to do this myself, for a number of reason's I'd find a second
static IP useful, but my ISP only sells them in blocks of 16, and it's
just not worth it to me.
> > I was also going to use that machine to do some low bandwidth
> > stuff.
You will have to explain this better, but it sounds like forwarding one or
two ports isn't enough then. I suggest going with the above configuration
then. Sorry I can't help you with the forwarding rules.
hth
charles
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
