Cheapest home network solution?

[Joe Samangitak]

I want to set up a simple WIRLESS home network; to connect 2 desktop
PC's
wirelessly, in order to share a hi-speed DSL connection. I've
currently
got one USB DSL modem, both PC's running XP Pro. What do I need to set
this up?
Is a wireless router necessary, or will the current modem work with 2
wireless
PCI network cards? Or if I need a wireless router, do I need 2
wireless network cards, one in each PC, or does the remote PC only
require the network card,
since there's already an antenna on the wireless router?

 

[Dan DiNicolo]

I want to set up a simple WIRLESS home network; to connect 2 desktop
PC's
wirelessly, in order to share a hi-speed DSL connection. I've
currently
got one USB DSL modem, both PC's running XP Pro. What do I need to set
this up?
Is a wireless router necessary, or will the current modem work with 2
wireless
PCI network cards? Or if I need a wireless router, do I need 2
wireless network cards, one in each PC, or does the remote PC only
require the network card,
since there's already an antenna on the wireless router?

At an absolute minimum, you can go PC-to-PC wireless, without a wireless
router. In this setup, the modem would be connected to one PC which would
have Internet Connection Sharing enabled, and the wireless network cards
would run in something called Ad-hoc mode. The only real issue is the
distance between the wireless computers. A wireless router helps a great
deal with signal strength, but it all depends on distance and sources of
interference.

 

[RWS]

Ad-hoc is really unreliable and will probably
end up being an exercise in frustration.

Check with your DSL provider concerning
the capabilties of your DSL modem. Maybe
it has the functionality to work as a wireless
router. If not then get a wireless router - they
really are not very expensive these days. Each
computer will need to have its own wireless
adapter. If you get a wireless router be sure
to check the documentation or manufacturer's
web site on how to set up security on it so you
don't have some shmo hitching / hacking into
your router.

 

[RWS]

I sent this post earlier:

Ad-hoc is really unreliable and will probably
end up being an exercise in frustration.

Check with your DSL provider concerning
the capabilties of your DSL modem. Maybe
it has the functionality to work as a wireless
router. If not then get a wireless router - they
really are not very expensive these days. Each
computer will need to have its own wireless
adapter. If you get a wireless router be sure
to check the documentation or manufacturer's
web site on how to set up security on it so you
don't have some shmo hitching / hacking into
your router.

I may have made a mistake there - if the one
computer is presently connecting to the DSL
modem by USB, then you could continue to
use USB for it if you get a wireless router
that provides a USB port connection and then
you would only need a wireless adapter for
the other computer. It was also probably silly
of me to think that that the DSL modem may
have wireless router capabilities. Hope this
clears up my previous posting on the matter.

 

[RWS]

My previous post had some errors-
I doubt your DSL modem has wireless
routing capabilties -

I still think you should get a wireless
router and most likely it will provide
a USB port so your one computer
could still connect to it via USB
and the other computer will need
a wireless adapter -

 

[Joe Samangitak]

I sent this post earlier:

Ad-hoc is really unreliable and will probably
end up being an exercise in frustration.

Thanks to the both of you for shedding a >little< more light on
the situation. Why do you think the 'Ad-Hoc' setup, where I
don't need a router (but would presumably need 2 wireless PCI
adapter cards) is not a viable option for me? My other computer
is only down the hall... we're talking maybe 50 feet.

My DSL provider's modem however is, I'm sure, not a wireless router model.
(It's the Speedstream USB 3060, looks like a stingray). The first clue
is that it has no jacks but for a regular telephone cable. I could have my
provider give me a model with an Ethernet jack, but I'm pretty sure they
don't offer wireless modem-routers, and I can't just put any modem I feel
like on their line; its unlikely to be compatible with their service.

So do I have this correct: If I (can) go "Ad-Hoc", all the equipment I
need is: 2 PCI wireless adapter cards, and if I can't go Ad-Hoc
(because, say, I need a wireless router/modem to use the Ad-Hoc method),
then I would need: 1 wireless router and 2 PCI wireless adapter cards,
one for each computer?

(I'm still a bit confused because I can't figure out why the main computer
with the wireless router would need a wireless PCI adapater card, since
there are already antenna on the wireless router that can communicate with
the wireless PCI adapter card on the remote computer).

 

[Chuck]

I want to set up a simple WIRLESS home network; to connect 2 desktop
PC's
wirelessly, in order to share a hi-speed DSL connection. I've
currently
got one USB DSL modem, both PC's running XP Pro. What do I need to set
this up?
Is a wireless router necessary, or will the current modem work with 2
wireless
PCI network cards? Or if I need a wireless router, do I need 2
wireless network cards, one in each PC, or does the remote PC only
require the network card,
since there's already an antenna on the wireless router?

Joe,

The most supported solution in general, for sharing internet service, is a
router connected to the DSL modem, and both computers connected (wired or
wirelessly) to the router.

In your case, if the DSL modem has only a USB port (make sure this is the case
please - what is the make and model of the modem?) then you'd need a router with
a USB WAN link. Or you will have to replace the modem with one that connects by
Ethernet.

If your modem truly is USB only, you can't replace the modem with an Ethernet
connected one, and you can't find a WiFi router with a USB WAN link, then you'll
have to connect the modem directly to your first computer, and have it serve as
the router, using ICS.

The other poster is right about ad-hoc WiFi and ICS. Making it work can truly
tax your patience. You're going to need a WiFi router connecting the ICS host
and client. You'll also need a network card (wired or WiFi), in the host
computer, to connect to the router.

You'll need to connect the host and client as peers to the router. If you're
using ICS on the host, you'll have to setup the router very carefully.

1) The router LAN interface will have to be something like 192.168.0.100 - the
host computer will be 192.168.0.1, thanks to ICS.
2) Disable DHCP on the router - ICS on the host computer will provide a DHCP
server.
3) Setup the client computer to get IP address and DNS server addresses from
DHCP.

When you configure a wireless router, using a wired connection is always best.
So I would recommend that you install an Ethernet card, if one is not already
installed) in the ICS host computer. Connect the ICS host to a LAN port on the
router. Your ICS host will provide routing on your LAN, so the WAN connection
on the router must be unconnected.

In summary, you need:
1) WiFi router.
2) Ethernet card in the ICS host.
3) WiFi card in the ICS client.

Please let us know how this works for you - this is a complicated setup, but one
that should be doable.

And Joe, posting your email address openly will get you more unwanted email,
than wanted email. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep yourself
a bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of the
internet - read this article.
http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_munging.htm

--
Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck sonic net.

 

[Guest]

Hi Chuck and Joe,
Chuck listed two solutions in his response to Joe below. I have tried the
first one and it works using the linksys WRT54GS but I have a problem with
parental control setting. I use verizon DSL which comes with parental control
but not supported by Linksys, meaning I will have to subscribe to Linksys for
this service which I don't want to do. So I tried the second solution. Please
see my posting dated 2/2/05 with title "Client cannot communicate with ICS
host". The easiest way to find the posting is to search for" DeeBeez". I have
done everything you suggested below but the setup still does not work. What
else can be done to make this setup work?
Thanks
DeeBeez

 

[Eras]

"Joe Samangitak" wrote

I want to set up a simple WIRLESS home network; to connect 2 desktop
PC's
wirelessly, in order to share a hi-speed DSL connection. I've
currently
got one USB DSL modem, both PC's running XP Pro. What do I need to set
this up?
Is a wireless router necessary, or will the current modem work with 2
wireless
PCI network cards? Or if I need a wireless router, do I need 2
wireless network cards, one in each PC, or does the remote PC only
require the network card,
since there's already an antenna on the wireless router?

Check out the newsgroup alt.internet.wireless You'll see many of your
initial questions asked, and answered, by others.

I concur with the other replies in this thread about leaning towards just
getting an actual hardware router. Wireless (home/residential) routers
with built in Access Points are, in many cases, are even less expensive than
stand-alone Access Points. Manufacturers probably do this as "loss leader"
to get you branded into their products. Using wireless products from the
same manufacturer usually has the advantage of being able to incorporate
their proprietary "turbo modes" across the network. Other manufacturer's
products, in most cases, will still be able to connect (as it can still fall
back to vanilla 802.11a/b/g), but you won't be able to take advantage of any
proprietary modes.

With 802.11g/b wireless routers (with built in AP) being sold for hardly
much more than a wireless PCI or PCMCIA card, I think the little bit of
extra dollars spent will be worth it over doing the ICS and Ad-Hoc
approach -- which others have pointed out can be a major PITA.

Other advantages of the router will be an embedded firewall, virtual server
(port forwarding) capability, dedicated hardware doing the routing (no loss
of resources on a PC), and best of all none of the computers actually have
to be powered up in order for the network to be "alive" -- which is very
nice when all your computers are powered down but you want to web/email with
a laptop or PDA.

I have a hybrid wired, 802.11a, 802.11g, 802.11b network going on here at my
home. Also got subnets, bridges, etc, all going on as well. So, may be
able to answer any questions regarding the various wireless schemes. I'm
using Super/Turbo 802.11a mainly for large (W)LAN pipes as I do quite a bit
of video work that requires transfering extremely large files across
different computers. Super/Turbo 802.11g is being used for "internet
devices" such as a media center and soon a broadband phone. Finally,
802.11b is being used just for internet access for laptop, PDA, game
consoles, etc...

To answer your question about if you have a router/AP and want to connect a
"remote PC": I'm not really sure if I completetly understand the question.
Each computer (or device, game console, etc) that connects to the router
over-the-air needs only one wireless adapter -- which can either be a
hardware card or an external wireless adapter (i.e., a wireless-ethernet
bridge). Each adapter connected to the router is considered a "client".
However, (home/residential) wireless routers usually have a number of wired
ethernet LAN ports (usually four) that can also be used. A PC that is
physically located near the router can simply just connect to the router by
a straight ethernet cable. Cable connection is simply from the PC's
ethernet port to a LAN port on the router. The router will handle the hard
connected PC the exact same as if it were coming over the air (i.e., give IP
assignment if using DHCP, etc). The LAN ports on the router aren't
restricted to a PC, you can plug just about any ethernet device into it such
as game consoles or even another Access Point! :^)

Hope that didn't lead to any confusion.

Cheers n' beers!
-ES

 

[Joe Samangitak]

Joe,

The most supported solution in general, for sharing internet service, is a
router connected to the DSL modem, and both computers connected (wired or
wirelessly) to the router.

Chuck,

Thank you for the very informative response. I appreciate your time
and
input. So I almost hate to say this, but I discovered an entirely new
networking technology this aft, "HomePNA", and now my networking plans
have turned on a dime. It is such an attractive technolgy, I can't
figure out
why people setting up home networking would even opt for WiFi. It
allows
you to plug your home computers into the existing telephone wire
infrastructure (which is no problem for me, since both computers are
near a phone jack). It's extrememly simple to set up (no routers
involved), unlike the scenario you described above. It costs no more
than WiFi, maybe less, and is capable of much faster speeds (128MB,
256MB possible, according to the new 3.0 standard).

The only thing I'm not sure about right now, is whether I need a
HomePNA adapter for each computer (comes either as a PCI card or USB),
or only one for the host computer.

As for my email address, thanks for the concern but... it's merely a
"dummy" address. It was opened only for posting, and I have never
checked it nor plan to. Although I have various SPAM software in my
-real- email client, I never installed any because I almost never got
any SPAM. I guess I must be pretty good at dodging the SPAM bullets.
Because this meant my SPAM software was getting lonely, I recently
made several attempts to get SPAM, but nothing worked. I joined
mailing lists notorious for SPAMMING listees, I sent letters to known
SPAMMERS begging to be spammed, I posted messages on Usenet begging
for SPAM... I even went so far as joining MSN .NET and Yahoo services.
I found it to be very difficult to get SPAMMED when you want to be
SPAMMED.

 

[Chuck]

Thanks to the both of you for shedding a >little< more light on
the situation. Why do you think the 'Ad-Hoc' setup, where I
don't need a router (but would presumably need 2 wireless PCI
adapter cards) is not a viable option for me? My other computer
is only down the hall... we're talking maybe 50 feet.

My DSL provider's modem however is, I'm sure, not a wireless router model.
(It's the Speedstream USB 3060, looks like a stingray). The first clue
is that it has no jacks but for a regular telephone cable. I could have my
provider give me a model with an Ethernet jack, but I'm pretty sure they
don't offer wireless modem-routers, and I can't just put any modem I feel
like on their line; its unlikely to be compatible with their service.

So do I have this correct: If I (can) go "Ad-Hoc", all the equipment I
need is: 2 PCI wireless adapter cards, and if I can't go Ad-Hoc
(because, say, I need a wireless router/modem to use the Ad-Hoc method),
then I would need: 1 wireless router and 2 PCI wireless adapter cards,
one for each computer?

(I'm still a bit confused because I can't figure out why the main computer
with the wireless router would need a wireless PCI adapater card, since
there are already antenna on the wireless router that can communicate with
the wireless PCI adapter card on the remote computer).

Joe,

I never suggest a combined modem / router, for the same reasons which you're
implying.

If you go with an ad-hoc solution, and you connect the USB modem to the first
computer, then all you need is two wireless cards, one for each computer.

If you get an Ethernet modem from your DSL supplier, and you get a NAT router,
then you need a wired or wireless card for computer #1, and a wireless card for
computer #2.

You will need either a wired, or a wireless card, for the main computer. If you
use a router to connect the two computers, you will have to connect the main
computer to the router, either by wired or wireless - that's your choice. My
choice would be wired, because setting up a wireless router is better done thru
Ethernet.

Solution #1 - Ethernet Infrastructure:
Hardware Required:
1) Ethernet modem from your DSL supplier.
2) NAT wireless router of your choice.
3) Ethernet card for main computer, to connect it to the router.
4) Wireless card for second computer, to connect it to the router.
Pros:
1) Simple to setup.
2) More standard solution, easier to support.
3) NAT router provides internet security.
4) Main and second computers can be used independently of each other.
Cons:
1) DSL supplier has to provide an Ethernet modem.
2) Expense of buying a wireless router.

Solution #2 - USB/ICS Ad-Hoc:
Hardware Required:
1) Wireless card for main computer.
2) Wireless card for second computer.
Pros:
1) Cheap.
2) Simple hardware installation.
3) Uses the currently supplied USB modem.
Cons:
1) Requires ICS on the main computer (one time setup, plus a small ongoing
resources drain).
2) Requires the main computer powered on, whenever you wish to access the
internet from either computer.

It's your LAN, and your choice. Personally, if I have broadband, I'll always
use Ethernet and a router to connect, and to share services.

--
Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck sonic net.

 

[Guest]

The 'cheapest solution' would be to connect a Wireless access point to the
computer with the internet access and then install a PCI wireless card in the
remote PC.

Netgear has some products which suit, as do oh so many other.

You can read about the Access Point:
http://www.netgear.com/products/consumer/prod_accesspoint_wireless_hm.php

for the remote desktop PC use:
http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG311T.php
http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG111U.php

It may be more expedient to install a Wireless Router: this can physically
connect to the desktop PC and you ADSL modem, and then of course wirelessly
to the remote PC.
http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WGR614.php

Why put in a router? Simple: it maintains the internet access independently
and permits the remote PC to connect to the internet even if the 'host' PC is
switched off.

One step further would be Wireless Router and ADSL modem in a combined unit.
This one is from D-Link [I have no preference for Netgear, 3Com, D-Link or
other] so make your own choices, based upon your budget.
http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=372

 

[Chuck]

Chuck,

Thank you for the very informative response. I appreciate your time
and
input. So I almost hate to say this, but I discovered an entirely new
networking technology this aft, "HomePNA", and now my networking plans
have turned on a dime. It is such an attractive technolgy, I can't
figure out
why people setting up home networking would even opt for WiFi. It
allows
you to plug your home computers into the existing telephone wire
infrastructure (which is no problem for me, since both computers are
near a phone jack). It's extrememly simple to set up (no routers
involved), unlike the scenario you described above. It costs no more
than WiFi, maybe less, and is capable of much faster speeds (128MB,
256MB possible, according to the new 3.0 standard).

The only thing I'm not sure about right now, is whether I need a
HomePNA adapter for each computer (comes either as a PCI card or USB),
or only one for the host computer.

As for my email address, thanks for the concern but... it's merely a
"dummy" address. It was opened only for posting, and I have never
checked it nor plan to. Although I have various SPAM software in my
-real- email client, I never installed any because I almost never got
any SPAM. I guess I must be pretty good at dodging the SPAM bullets.
Because this meant my SPAM software was getting lonely, I recently
made several attempts to get SPAM, but nothing worked. I joined
mailing lists notorious for SPAMMING listees, I sent letters to known
SPAMMERS begging to be spammed, I posted messages on Usenet begging
for SPAM... I even went so far as joining MSN .NET and Yahoo services.
I found it to be very difficult to get SPAMMED when you want to be
SPAMMED.

Joe,

Kewl. PNA is a new networking technique, one with a lot of promise. As long as
you understand the limitations.

Ethernet is a mature technology, built-in to Windows, and most computers come
with Ethernet already installed. WiFi is getting there. HomePNA may not be
there yet - you have to add on hardware, and possibly software drivers (as with
WiFi, you have to weigh the benefits of PCI vs USB).

Like USB WiFi, you may have to make the main computer into a ICS server for
internet sharing. And again, I and various others would advise you to avoid a
solution that uses ICS gratuitously.

One of the biggest drawbacks of PNA may be its newness. A lot of people are
familiar with Ethernet, less with WiFi, and still less with PNA. With lack of
experts comes the risk of lack of support. And lack of use may make the
hardware less available, and prices less advantageous.

Up until a year or so ago, using ICS with WiFi, and specifically Ad-Hoc WiFi,
was a challenge. At one time, various vendors didn't support ad-hoc wifi with
ICS, though I can't find any specific references to that right now.

How well does PNA fit into the OSI layered networking model? How well does ICS
work with PNA? These are two questions that I don't have enough experience with
yet. I'll look forward to your experiences, if you'll be kind enough to post
them here others may learn from you.

--
Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck sonic net.

 

[Eras]

The 'cheapest solution' would be to connect a Wireless access point to the
computer with the internet access and then install a PCI wireless card in the
remote PC.

Hmm. Thats a good point. Some of the new "Access Points" seem to be
incorporating new features that give them some "router-like" functionality.
I just picked up two new Access Points a couple weeks ago. They are both
802.11a/g/b and are capable of various modes (AP, Repeater, Bridge, Client,
etc). My wireless router was 802.11a/b only, and I wanted to add 802.11g
into the loop -- and also be able to cover some "dead space". I have one of
the new AP's plugged into the router as a second AP, while the other new AP
is acting as a repeater for that second AP. (They weren't capable of
repeating the router's built-in AP, another reason for going with two.)
Both of the two new AP's also have built-in embedded DHCP, which of course
is disabled since the router is doing all the DHCP.

I've since taken one of the new AP's (one in repeater mode) to a friend's
house and we used it in AP mode to setup a quick LAN to play some
multiplayer games. We didn't use it for any internet traffic (didn't even
think of it), but after reading your post I'm wondering what exactly would
be preventing it to do such if his cable modem was plugged directly into the
AP's WAN port? It can take upstream traffic, assign IP's, so can't really
see why that wouldn't work. I may just have to give that a try (?).

Thanks! :^)