sharing the internet

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

i am running xp home (host)with and xp pro my problem is that i can not share my internet.i can acess all the other stuff on xp pro and the other way around.
if it would be any help my ip on host is 192.168.0.1 ,subnet mask 255.255.255.0
on xp pro ip 192.168.0.3, bubnet mask 255.255.255.0 and gateway 192.168.0.3
i am also running pc-cillicn 2002 can that be a problem
 
For ICS, you need to set the other computer to receive an IP address via
DHCP, IIRC.
Personally, I hate ICS....I'd get a cheap hardare firewall/router/gateway
appliance like a NetGear FR114p or equivalent.
 
CLAUDE said:
i am running xp home (host)with and xp pro my problem is that i can not
Click to expand...
share my internet.i can acess all the other stuff on xp pro and the other
way around.
if it would be any help my ip on host is 192.168.0.1 ,subnet mask 255.255.255.0
on xp pro ip 192.168.0.3, bubnet mask 255.255.255.0 and gateway 192.168.0.3
i am also running pc-cillicn 2002 can that be a problem
Click to expand...


The gateway on the client machines ( your XP pro )
should point to the host, ie 192.168.0.1

The easiest way is to let the clients pick up IP address automatically.

If you want to manually configure them, that's Ok, but you will need to
set the gateway to point at the host, and also set the DNS to point to
either the host ( 192.168.0.1 ) or your ISP's DNS.
 
Personally, I hate ICS....I'd get a cheap hardare firewall/router/gateway
appliance like a NetGear FR114p or equivalent.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Connecting the two computers with a NAT router is the responsible solution.

All computers will be safer. The router will block any malevolent internet
traffic. This further protects the internet, from your becoming infected and
spreading the infection.

All computers will run better, with the router blocking the trash infection
traffic. Any personal firewall on either computer will have less to do, because
the router will block most malevolent traffic.

All computers will run independent of each other. Right now, if you have
internet connectivity on multiple computers, either you are paying your ISP for
multiple connections (a waste of $$$), or you have to have one computer on
whenever you wish to access the internet from any other. With a router, neither
is true.

If you can afford to have more then one computer, and internet access, you can
afford a NAT router. For many reasons.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Chuck said:
Amen.

Connecting the two computers with a NAT router is the responsible
solution.

All computers will be safer. The router will block any malevolent
internet traffic. This further protects the internet, from your
becoming infected and spreading the infection.

All computers will run better, with the router blocking the trash
infection traffic. Any personal firewall on either computer will
have less to do, because the router will block most malevolent
traffic.

All computers will run independent of each other. Right now, if you
have internet connectivity on multiple computers, either you are
paying your ISP for multiple connections (a waste of $$$), or you
have to have one computer on whenever you wish to access the internet
from any other. With a router, neither is true.

If you can afford to have more then one computer, and internet
access, you can afford a NAT router. For many reasons.
Click to expand...

....I'd make sure it has a built-in SPI firewall, too - they're cheap enough.
Netgear FR114p - $80 USD. :-)
 
Exchange] said:
For ICS, you need to set the other computer to receive an IP address via
DHCP, IIRC.
Click to expand...

DHCP is usually the best choice, but a static configuration is fine on
the other computer. For static, make all of these settings:

IP Address: 192.168.0.x (1<x<255)
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1
DNS Server = 192.168.0.1 or ISP's DNS server
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:29:41 -0400, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"

...I'd make sure it has a built-in SPI firewall, too - they're cheap enough.
Netgear FR114p - $80 USD. :-)
Click to expand...

Or my favorite, the Linksys BEFSX41, SPI also, same price.
<http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=34&scid=29&prid=433>

Both are compatible with Linklogger, which means they have a more complete
activity log than most NAT routers. And the BEFSX41 is also compatible with
WallWatcher, which is free and will submit log entries automatically to DShield
and to MyNetWatchman.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Back
Top