Wireless PC to (PC + PC) Cabled.

[RedVenom]

Yes, but ICS is also *translating* the traffic, which might cause problems if, say, wanting to share files between the machines on the house network. All you *need* is the routeing.

Of course its translating the traffic - thats what ICS does (NAT's between a public and a private address range). Its not designed as a fully functional router, because MS hardly want to give you the world for free. Also the default gateway (wireless router) probably won't have the capacity for setting up independent routes back to the other network. In this instance the parents machine could well have difficulties accessing the pc off on the 'routed' network. ICS NAT'ing the traffic to another address range is probably actually beneficial as it prevents a whole load of problems with routing - none of this is good grade kit, its all for home users who want to plug things in and have it work.

Of course, if it was on more industrial grade kit, then it'd be fine to just route the traffic - but then you wouldn't go about this in such a half-baked way would you? So its pretty pointless in arguing the semantics of what it could be. This is the layout thats been chosen, and in this situation having the traffic NAT'd is actually advantageous. Yes, it *may* cause problems with some protocols, but really anything should be able to traverse NAT without too many complications (lol PAT lol).

 

[]SK[]

I get a strong signal from underneith my access point making no difference of ping times. The arial needs to be pointing (from the sides of the arial) in the general direction your PC is for the best responce.

I have two arials on my AP one sits horizontal for (downstairs) and the other vertical.

Remember the signal comes from the sides of the omni arials not the top.

 

[RedVenom]

<snip>

Anyway, you probably want to consider things like if you have a DEC phone in the house, or other things which might interfere. You could change the channel that things are running on if you find you have bad speeds, or if you have anything inbetween which might be causing problems (electrical cabling in the floors, anything which might be shielding) or things which might affect the signal close up (devices close to the PC or AP).

Take a read up on www.ieee.org if you can't find any more information, although there's been enough written about wireless that you should really be able to find something about 802.11g.

 

[pgh]

More problems. :[

2 things now. Before, the signal was as I said, around 20% strongish, normally going between 20-54mbps, but last nite it suddenly just sat at 2mbps/1mbps then disconnecting every 5/10 minutes.. the thing is, nothing had changed, moved etc..

Going to need to move some things about in me room I think but any other suggestions for improving this without buying anything else such as an amp or whatever..? Is there any settings or whatever I can set within the network conn props that may help too? Such a noob at this networking stuff.. wish I listened for the time I spent at college..

My next problem is ICS and such. I have internet on one pc downstairs thats directly into router via Ethernet and the Wireless one has it too.. just seems I cant get it on the PC thats ethernet'd to me wireless one. Even weirder is the way it seems setup.. with folder sharing and such enabled from me Wirless connected PC I can access both the other two PC's HD's and likewise from downstairs can access upstairs but the same PC failing to gain access can only access the one its directly ethernet'd too.. also, creating a Q3 game on either the downstairs box or the ethernet'd to wireless box then only one PC can see it.. when the Wireless one creates both PC's can see it (guessing because its kind of a middle point) but when connected only the ethernet'd one can play.. other downstairs seems to just lag. Im guessing this is related to the fact that the two ethernet'd PC's are failing to see each other properly hence data between the 2's fucked up and causing one to lag?

Hope anyone can understand the post, let alone gimme some sort of advice/help. Ta.

 

[]SK[]

You do use Mac authentication dont you?

 

[RedVenom]

^^^ I think he's talking about i586 machines, not Macintoshes.

Hope anyone can understand the post, let alone gimme some sort of advice/help. Ta.

No, draw diagrams.

Really, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[]SK[]

^^^ I think he's talking about i586 machines, not Macintoshes.

and im talking about mac authentication as in preventing other peoples wireless network devices connect to his AP

 

[Xavier]

Mac authentication as in only allowing wireless devices of a certain MAC address to connect? Hopefully not, WEP should be all you need. Aerial directions are a biggie, you'd be amazed at the difference it can make. Make sure the aerials are screwed into the cards properly as even being a little loose can diminish signal drastically.

Xav

 

[]SK[]

Yes, I dont use WEP as theres only internet traffic going over the network. Stopping others from using my bandwidth was the main consern.

 

[RedVenom]

Mac authentication as in only allowing wireless devices of a certain MAC address to connect? Hopefully not, WEP should be all you need.

WEP can be cracked, MAC's can be spoofed - what you use depends on your needs. Most home users probably don't have anything important enough to need either particularly much.

 

[pgh]

Gah I hate drawing diagrams. Here it is.

Yeh it is only my 2 comps on the router. And tbh, theres no one in my area who looks like they would know what a wireless connection is let alone steal mine. :} Afaik the Antennas are all in tight but again tis one reason im tempted to move my setup around to get this conn somewhat closer to the source..

Following the diagram RV..

PC3 cant seem to see PC1's HD over the network even tho PC1 can see PC3. (Both shared and I know as PC2 can see PC3's share).

If either PC1 or PC3 host a q3 server only 2 can see it. If 2 hosts it 3 AND 1 can see it but when connected PC1 just lags sif its failing to recieve data from PC3.. probs related to the above.

PC3 also cant access the internet what so ever via PC2. Tried various things but does anyone actually have a kind of step by step guide to correctly setting up the net sharing for xp pro?

 

[Clown]

So you only bought one wireless card? I thought you was gonna buy two
It would have made life so much easier.

 

[pgh]

Came back from a Lan in London weekend there and just picked the stuff up Duty Free @ Airport.. didnt want to spend to much at the start of the month.. :]

 

[Clown]

There's no such things as LANs in London

 

[Xavier]

WEP can be cracked, MAC's can be spoofed - what you use depends on your needs. Most home users probably don't have anything important enough to need either particularly much.

My point is it's 10x easier to work out the MAC address of an active adapter than crack 128-bit WEP.

 

[Clown]

My point is it's 10x easier to work out the MAC address of an active adapter than crack 128-bit WEP.

It's all good here, everyone is too poor for wireless networking. I turn off everything... I like to think it helps the signal/stability or something.

 

[]SK[]

If someones willing to attempt to hack my mac address then Ill add WEP. Until that day comes WEP stays off. Would someone really be that eager to use my shit 512k? Besides neighbours would get a crap connection from my AP.

 

[Athan]

"I'll leave the barn door open until the horses have already bolted".

Really, with wireless you have to assume someone *will* take advantage of it. Thus arguments like "WEP would give more overhead" or "it's too fiddly to sort out" are a mug's game.

Personally I'd not be so worried about them hijacking bandwidth (although it'd piss me off if I got a crap ping ingame 'cos of it ), but more the risk of there being some other security problem with the machines/network and giving any wardriver access to private files. As much as any of us are paranoid about security there's all too often some vulnerability that hasn't been patched yet or some typo that's left authentication off something. Best not to take the risk in the first place.

Of course if I did wireless I'd probably go the whole hog and make it only useable to VPN with strong authentication to my server .

-Ath

 

[Xavier]

"I'll leave the barn door open until the horses have already bolted".

Really, with wireless you have to assume someone *will* take advantage of it. Thus arguments like "WEP would give more overhead" or "it's too fiddly to sort out" are a mug's game.

Personally I'd not be so worried about them hijacking bandwidth (although it'd piss me off if I got a crap ping ingame 'cos of it ), but more the risk of there being some other security problem with the machines/network and giving any wardriver access to private files. As much as any of us are paranoid about security there's all too often some vulnerability that hasn't been patched yet or some typo that's left authentication off something. Best not to take the risk in the first place.

Of course if I did wireless I'd probably go the whole hog and make it only useable to VPN with strong authentication to my server .

-Ath

Agreed, WEP takes a minute or two to set up, and the overhead isn't something you'll notice if you're only using it for web access. Remember the WiFi is a minimum of 11Mbps at peak and you're only going to use half a meg of that...

 

[Xavier]

It's all good here, everyone is too poor for wireless networking. I turn off everything... I like to think it helps the signal/stability or something.

People wardrive EVERYWHERE these days, there's even a national database of vulnerable AP's, cross-referenced with GPS, you don't want to find out that someone's spotted yer LAN by appearing on there, believe me.

 

[Clown]

LONDON SW4.

Come get som'n.

 

[RedVenom]

Agreed, WEP takes a minute or two to set up, and the overhead isn't something you'll notice if you're only using it for web access. Remember the WiFi is a minimum of 11Mbps at peak and you're only going to use half a meg of that...

You scale your security according to the level of threat. If you have a home PC that plays the occasional game and you keep anything important on floppy disk, why should you care about someone maybe borrowing some of that 512k of bandwidth? In that even if someone wrecks your PC, you'll only call PC World out to fix it. It'd be a slight inconvenience. And lets face it, most people hi-jack wifi connections of home users to appropriate bandwidth, not to wreck machines.

Thats left for companies with no security...

 

[Xavier]

You scale your security according to the level of threat. If you have a home PC that plays the occasional game and you keep anything important on floppy disk, why should you care about someone maybe borrowing some of that 512k of bandwidth? In that even if someone wrecks your PC, you'll only call PC World out to fix it. It'd be a slight inconvenience. And lets face it, most people hi-jack wifi connections of home users to appropriate bandwidth, not to wreck machines.

Thats left for companies with no security...

So would you connect to the internet without antivirus or firewall until you recieved your first worm or virulent email? It's prudent to protect yourself based on the expectation of attack, but only plugging the holes which are currently being exploited on your network is a very Microsoft way of thinking, and leaving your trousers down because you think noone has noticed seems utterly mad, imho.

Take another example of wireless exploit - a bluetooth mobile phone, would you only change the default passkey on a handset AFTER someone connected to your mobile and racked up a huge bill in data calls? A breach onto your network may not cost you directly, but if someone can get onto your wireless they're behind your NAT firewall onto directly on your LAN - allowing them to sniff wireless packets, or wedge a trojan onto your system they can harvest anything from credit card numbers to cd-keys, all of which could be avoided with a little forward thought.

I personally don't like the "if I break it, I'll take it to PC world" attitude, and to be honest that's not what these forums are here for. If you honestly know nothing about PCs and don't want to learn, or help others, these aren't the forums to visit. If however you're interested in discussing topics and advising users to help them get beyond the tech epoch of 'pleb' then due diligence is what it's all about.

With WEP protection offered as standard on nearly every piece of wireless kit available on todays market, natively supported by OSes such as XP (with its zero configuration WPA) and having zero impact when you're doing something like sharing a DSL line, why wouldn't you take the necessary two minutes to configure WEP on your router and type a key in on each client PC? It's just another piece of security, and costs you nothing as it's a feature on kit you've already paid for.

With regards to your problem pgh, have you fixed it? Not seen an update for a day or two, so if you're still in need of help let us know.

 

[Clown]

So would you connect to the internet without antivirus or firewall until you recieved your first worm or virulent email?

I did... But then I installed an anti-virus anyway, scanned, found that I didn't have a virus anyway. Then I couldn't be bothered to delete it. Not that it mattered... people have got viruses even though they had the AV software.

If you honestly know nothing about PCs and don't want to learn, or help others, these aren't the forums to visit.

He stays then

With WEP protection offered as standard on nearly every piece of wireless kit available on todays market, natively supported by OSes such as XP (with its zero configuration WPA) and having zero impact when you're doing something like sharing a DSL line, why wouldn't you take the necessary two minutes to configure WEP on your router and type a key in on each client PC?

I did. I seemed to have better signal without it. Then I took two minutes to turn it all off (actually that's crap, my other PC didn't have a monitor and stuff on it... I forgot to change the settings on the wireless card before I messed with the settings on the router).

 

[Xavier]

I'd check your firmware then and speak to the manufacturer of your router, WEP can't have a signal impact as it has no interaction with the radio stack of your wireless, only the data being sent.

 

[Clown]

Newest firmware. Anyway, I can't be arsed putting WEP back on. I manage the other computer with VNC (oh, there's gotta be a better way) and changing the details and stuff will break the connection.

It's all good though... you have to be within a massive 5 metres to actually pick up a signal from the AP. Gr8!!

 

[Xavier]

Hmm, which router is it? Somethings up there, my AP is 'out back' and I can get a decent connection up to 100m away, which is through bricks, mortar and god knows what else.

 

[Clown]

I live in a small concrete* two-floor flat, a maisonette if you like? There are fridges and freezers and microwaves and bluetooth and wireless telephones and televisions and other things that run on near enough the same frequency that bugger the chances of the AP and WiFi card talking.

It's probably all my fault anyway, not the hardware

*and other shit

 

[Nozzer]

ipsec 4 lyfe.

 

[Dr_Weasel]

Clown, Make sure you have up to date firmware on your access point and wireless card. My linksys laptop card kept dropping the connection every 5 minutes or so even if it was right next to the AP on full signal strength. One firmware upgrade later and its never dropped the connection since.