V
VanguardLH
Nil said:
"why not all routers have a hardware-switch" implied that none of them
have a switch. So far, no invisible force has levitated me over to the
cable modem to force my finger to push the button.
"why not all routers have a hardware-switch" implied that none of them
have a switch. So far, no invisible force has levitated me over to the
cable modem to force my finger to push the button.
V
VanguardLH
Nil said:
Did you read the thread? Etal said, "What i find incomprehensible is
why not all routers have a hardware-switch (instead of making you yank
out the cable, often eventually ruining the connector) to disable the
WAN-port (internet) while allowing the LAN-ports to continue to be
working."
Then YOU said, "prone to being accidentally pushed at inconvenient
times" hence my comment that pushing the button is NOT an accident as
you claim nor are users prone to be pushing the button.
N
N. Miller
Never had a cable modem, so I don't know the button arrangements of same.
But both of my DSL modems have power switches, and both are "out of the
way", on the rear panel. Only time I ever accidentally pushed that button is
when I was trying to "hot swap" the Ethernet cable. Trust me, if you
accidentally push the button during that operation, you know right away.
Would be the same if it was a "standby" button, as you would lose Internet
connectivity before you put the modem back down. I don't really buy the
"accidental push" story.
E
Etal
VanguardLH said:
</copied from the end>
I read Geri's, the OPs, post *again* and i don't interpret that
as being the request. To me it read that s/he didn't want to keep
dis-/connecting the physical cables but looked for ways to
control access to computer(s) in the LAN.
Below i respond with my own opinions and how it applies for my
own particular setup and needs, not how it might relate to the OP.
I hope (and believe) that there are routers that has switches
like that, all i can say is that the times i've been shopping for
a new router i have looked for it but was disappointed that none
of the models of any of the available brands in the many
home-electronic chains and computer-stores i visited had them.
I have looked in the routers config for a somewhere to explicitly
turn off the WAN-side via software but at least in my current
D-Link router i can not find such a setting .. I have
contemplated doing what you suggest, but i have been pensive that
it would if there was a short power-outage, after the router
rebooted on its own automatically get at WAN-IP via DHCP and i
would have now idea that that had happened. Instead of just
theorizing should test what in fact happens and i hope your
suggestion here pushes me to test it out at a soon as convenient.
My current land-line voice-phone subscription is to the broadband
cable company, meaning the land-line is connected into that
/Cable Modem/ -device. So it's not an option for me to turn off
the power for that device. Generally, while it has been quick in
my experience, the instructions i've seen for cable modem-
hookups is that they may need several (5-15 mins) to finish
reconnecting to the ISP servers after having been turned off.
As i also wrote in reply to Paul, i have one of them. It's a
SB5100E (packaging-box says it's from 2002) with a top-standby
button and 5 front LEDs. As i recall on this model the bottom
"Standby" LED turns on while the other 4 goes off (somewhat
unsure about the top "Power" LED). Not that the details matters
much beyond that it was easy to visually tell the difference.
Yes, it's a sub-optimal solution i have fallen back to using. A
good thing is that en-/dis-abling the network device like this is
quick and does not require a reboot under WinXP. Going into the
router-setup and releasing/renewing the WAN-IP, like i will
explore, is better but more cumbersome to quickly get on line,
but staying nut-free for most of the time. (Maybe the router
setting can be handled more transparently via a script but that
is beyond what i know or have searched for how to accomplish.)
Nah. They are alway turned off except when i need to access the
internet, like now on this computer. So i turn networking on via
the shortcut, do what i want on line and then turn networking off
again before i shut down the computer.
The big bad thing for me in my current setup is that i loose LAN,
and is why i wish i could use my older cable-modem with the
standby or even better have a router with a hardware WAN-switch.
.... And, while i sometimes turn on networking on two machines
simultaneously to transfer files i tend to mostly use SneakerNet
for that (it thankfully works even though my newest computer
lacks a FDD
).This was probably not for the OP situation as i understood it,
but just a small notice tucked on at the end, my thinking that it
might suit the setup of someone else happening to be reading the
post unaware that their laptops have such a switch for the
wireless network.
See back at the top.
N
Nil
I'm relating my experience and others'. I often accidentally pushed the
modem's standby switch when handling it.
Why would you try to start an argument about this?
N
Nil
This particular Motorola modem had a button on the top of the unit
which was hard to see and didn't have much resistance or make any noise
when pushed. I found it very easy to push it while fumbling around with
the unit, which was usually when I was having connection problems in
the first place. I assume that they later omitted the button both as as
cost-cutting measure, and to reduce the support calls from people who
pushed it either accidentally, or not knowing what it did.
It happened. You can buy it or not, it's up to you.
R
Roy
==
My ISP did not explain other than the polling. Power outages of 4 to 6
hours duration have not caused the ISP to suspend service so I'm
thinking that there must be a specific time period involved...say 24
hours. Service here is tower to tower and my signal comes from seven
miles away. I am pleased with the service...what used to take seven
hours to download now takes from twenty to forty-five minutes
depending on source and time of day.
==
V
VanguardLH
Nil said:
I'm not starting an argument (to attack you). YOU said "What" so I
figure you didn't understand my reply or the context for it.
It looked to me Etal was saying all cable modem are missing a hardware
switch to disable Internet access. Not true. Some have a switch. Even
Etal conceded that point that he made.
Your point was that cable modem users are *prone* to hitting the Standby
switch (a momentary switch used to toggle a mode that is reset on a
power cycle of the cable modem) is the only point to which I argue (as
in debate or disagree). As in you noting that you were relating your
experience, I was also noting my experience that I have never seen what
you said was true. My hands have never wandered to the top of the case
where is the switch when I've been pulling or inserting cables or the
power cord in the back. Just doesn't seem a likely place to grasp the
unit. We can simply agree to disagree on our own experiences (for
ourselves and others we know with which we've dealt with their use of a
cable modem with a switch).
E
Etal
VanguardLH said:
I didn't know i had conceded the point i hadn't made in the first
place.
I didn't mention Cable Modems in my first post to this thread. I
think it is clear that i write about lack of switches on routers
and i hope it is clear to most readers of that post.
I /think/ that nowadays sometimes routers are built-in in the
devices that are called "Cable Modems". Maybe that is where the
confusion and misunderstandings in this sub-thread comes from?
V
VanguardLH
Etal said:
Yep, my bad, I thought you were looking for a disable switch on a cable
modem. However, what would be the point of a disable switch on a
router? If you have just one host then you don't need a router. If you
have multiple hosts, part of the router is its switch to allow traffic
between the intranet hosts so a switch on the router would effect the
same loss of network connectivity as pushing the power switch (or
yanking its power cable) on the router.
As a matter of fact, routers were never even mentioned in the OP's
message so any discussion of routers is off-topic of what is currently
known about the OP's setup. The OP never mentions multiple intranet
hosts for which a router would be applicable. If the OP is talking
about only one host, a router isn't needed and the OP probably doesn't
have one hence only the mention of the cable modem. So the rest of us
focused on the OP's mention of a cable router while you focused on a
router that the OP never mentioned.
With only what the OP stated for his network setup (his computer and
cable modem), no router is involved. So the OP merely has to power down
his computer (by removing its power source), configure the BIOS to not
honor wakeOnLAN events, or do the same in Windows (Device Mgmt) if the
OP is going into low-power mode rather than actually removing power from
the computer, or just disable his NIC using the tray icon provided the
LAN connectoid was configured to show a tray icon (although there are
other command-line methods to also disable/enable the NIC which could be
used in a shortcut).
In case the OP does have a router then your mention of an Internet
disconnect switch is applicable. However, since the upstream network
device (cable modem) has the switch then it would be superfluous to the
OP to find a router that had the same functionality. Also, even if the
OP does have a router, disabling the NIC at a particular host lets the
user of that host decide when to terminate Internet access rather than
one person shutting down access for all users of other hosts connected
to the same router. You won't want to endure the riot that ensues when
you kill everyone else's Internet access just because you happen not to
want it at some time.
And, by the way, releasing the WAN-side IP address (assigned by your
ISP) for your router *does* disable Internet access. Whether you use a
hostname (FQDN) or IP address for a site, you can't get there when you
don't have a routable Internet-facing IP address. Since 0.0.0.0 is a
reserved IP address for broadcasting, no one outside will get to YOUR
router ... or do you actually use an ISP that allows broadcast packets
between their customers and even from outside their customers? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_(computing). The LAN-side IP
address of your router (e.g., 192.168.1.1) will still be usable to your
intranet hosts for use as a gateway to get through the router's switch
to connect to each other.
So you could get a router with no switches and where you have to yank
the power cable (to deprive all hosts of Internet access that are
connected to that router) or yank cat5 cables (to deprive a single host
of Internet access). Or you could use the config of the router to
disable its Internet interface by releasing its DHCP address: the
WAN-side IP address needed by any upstream host to connect to that
router.
You should remember that the router is NOT specifically an Internet
networking device. You can use routers to subnet your internal network
or daisy chain them to increase their number of ports. They may not
connect to anything that goes directly to the Internet but instead to
another branch office, an upstream gateway host, or other network use.
A router is a switch with additional capabilities, like NAT and
filtering (firewalling), but those can be disabled to just use the
router like a subnetting switch. A router doesn't have an Internet
disable switch because it isn't specifically an Internet-only device.
Something for Internet access is going to be upstream of the router.
Like a switch, the router is meant to always be there whenever ANY of
the connected downstream hosts (computers, routers, switches) expect to
use that router so it's an always-on or all-off device. Whether the
router's WAN-side connection goes to the Internet depends on how you
choose to use the router.
E
Etal
VanguardLH said:
To effectively turn it into a LAN-only "Switch" device.
I don't keep track of your or anyone else's view specifically,
but i'd argue that almost without exception most security-minded
computer-problem-helpers strongly suggest using a Router even
when connecting a single computer to the internet over broadband.
Not if the on/off switch is placed where i argued it should be
placed (so it's only affecting the WAN side). I think we have
gone over this a few rounds now.
In relation to something the OP wrote i expressed an opinion i
have, a wish, that if present would be one alternative to
accomplish the request. Absent such a switch on a router i then
described a second possibility, the strategy i myself currently
use (that does not include the use of any router) as something
the OP and other interested readers could consider if it was
something that would work in their situations.
I focused on, what i understood was what was asked for, ways that
would secure/isolate your computer(s) from the internet while
hooked up to a Cable Modem, ways that avoided having to
physically unplug the physical cables.
[snip]
The OP's post started with:
"I have internet access thru a cable company modem that does not
have an on/off switch." ...
I mean really!
Around this part of the world it is reported that single-person
households account for something like 30-40% or perhaps even a
higher number. It is quite significant.
Indeed!, and it would be another way to achieve what the OP asked
for if it stayed like that until you specifically told it to
renew the address. However, i have now tested what happens in my
router after a power-outage and unfortunately it DHCP-reassigns
itself an IP-address when it restarts when the current returns.
So if a short power-outage happens when i'm out or perhaps asleep
i will be unaware that i am immediately connected to the big bad
internet when i turn on any computer that is connected to that
router.
Don't know. Think not. Hope not.
As i described above, that is not a secure option unless you
perhaps have it connected to an UPS.
Right! So, even if i only connect a single host-computer to the
internet i like to use a router for the protection its NAT and
perhaps other filtering abilities provide.
And then i also want a WAN-side hardware switch present so that i
can easily decide if i want to use the router as a LAN-only
"Switch" device or also as an internet-connecting device for the
one or more computers on the LAN.
I hope i have made my views on this clear.
V
VanguardLH
Etal said:
The "firewall" inside a router is so basic that any software firewall
you use on your host would be better. You're suggesting that someone
with a single host needs a router and that is not the case, even for
security reasons. Having a 3rd party software firewall on your host and
using the firewall filters in the router means you have a superfluous
firewall, and the one in the router is not as robust as even are the
free firewalls you can put on your host.
I was talking about the Standby switch, the one that disables the
upstream side of the cable modem, not the power switch the OP mentioned.
An "on/off switch" would, by most readers, be inferred to mean a power
switch.
We don't know the OP's situation. 30-40% is not a preponderous majority
to make the assumption the OP is a single-user within the entire
residence served by a drop from the ISP.
Alas, the Standby switch of the cable modem acts the same way. It
toggles the Internet access mode but will not survive a power cycle.
But then the suggestion to use a power strip (if the cable modem doesn't
have a power switch) would take care of powering off and keeping powered
off the cable modem.
It seems the logical choices for disabling Internet access would be at
the endpoints in the network: the workstation (for just that host) or at
the Internet-facing device (to remove Internet access to the entire
network). You could stick something in the middle but it's something a
kludge, like releasing the WAN-side IP address of a router or a physical
switch for the WAN-side of the router. Considering the network between
the workstation and the Internet-facing device could consist of multiple
routers, switches, hubs, wireless access points, and whatnot, having
each with an upstream physical disable switch would add cost and
unreliability to the whole setup not to mention the headaches to
tracking down which device in the path between workstation and Internet-
facing device happened to get its upstream interface disabled.
The switch you suggested for the router (to disable its Internet
interface; i.e., its WAN-side connectivity) would also get reset by the
power outage and return. Sounds like you're asking for a physical
switch instead of logic inside the router, something like:
http://www.cyberguys.com/product-details/?productid=165
It's a physical switch in that you have to flip the paddle to move the
contacts inside the switch. Power cycling of devices to which it
connects will not affect the switch's position. With the cut-throat
pricing of computer hardware, especially when it has become common
hardware with scales of mass production involved, the cost for a
WAN-side physical switch with its shielding, keeping attenuation down
across the switch, etc would probably be too cost prohibitive and push
the router outside the price range for its market. However, since some
device upstream of the router is the actual Internet-facing device, it's
probably more appropriate that device has the disable feature.
E
Etal
VanguardLH said:
I know that you know that whatever rudimentary firewall is in a
router is not the main point why it is suggested to use a router
also for a single computer.
VanguardLH wrote (in your previous post):
I am surprised to learn that you don't think that the Network
Address Translation a router performs is of any worth in securing
your network host(s) from an outside attack.
[snip]
And with the multitude of brands of routers each having
fiftyeleven[*1] different models in a wide range of prices. Non
of the models are allowed to feature a WAN-side cut-off switch...
Well, apparently that seems to be the case.
Sigh. ... Like most of us don't have lots of electronic devices
with various plugs, buttons and switches that we never make use
of even after having spent money buying these products.
[*1] A (probably) local expression meaning something like 'too
many to be bothered to count'.