Does Linksys BEFSR41 broadcast local LAN to net?
Burkus Toobus
IP. It's all working jolly well, but I read somewhere yesterday that one
shouldn't hook up the LAN PC's to the router jacks as all LAN traffic
would then get broadcast to the net. This sounds incorrect; but I
thought I verify here.
Thanks
jafiwam
"Burkus Toobus" <bur...@toobus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1508139ec2cb006c989682@news...
The router's job is specifically to NOT broadcast that stuff over the net.
Using a HUB and a second IP would do that.
If you use non-routable IPs on your lan (like they suggest in the manual)
then your data shouldnt be going anywhere past the router. (Look at the
activity light on your cable modem when transfering files on the LAN
compared to when you browse the internet, the router light will go, but the
cable modem light only goes when there is a program using the internet.)
Burkus Toobus
192.168.0.1 type space, correct? I am, if only by telling each pc to let
the router handle IP assingments...
Anyways, thanks, I just had to be sure.
In article <97m6kq$ndj$1...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, jaf...@yahoo.com
says...
John Navas
In <MPG.1508139ec2cb006c989682@news>, Burkus Toobus <bur...@toobus.com>
wrote:
See the Security sections of my webpage below.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
Eric Gross
"jafiwam" <jaf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97m6kq$ndj$1...@grandcanyon.binc.net...
> The router's job is specifically to NOT broadcast that stuff over the net.
> Using a HUB and a second IP would do that.
Not unless something was seriously screwed up. The cable modem acts as a
router, not a direct bridge. As long as the IP's on your subnet are the
same, the two machines will directly talk to each other through the internal
network and the traffic will not go out through the cable modem.
-Eric Gross
Bob
wrote:
>Thanks for responding. By "non-routable IP" you mean IP addresses in the
>192.168.0.1 type space, correct? I am, if only by telling each pc to let
>the router handle IP assingments...
Non-routable IP addresses are:
10.x.x.x
172.16.x.x - 162.31.x.x
192.168.x.x
Bob Knauer
---
"You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Robert A. Heinlein
John Navas
In <3a9fc7d8....@news-server.houston.rr.com>, r...@houston.rr.com
(Bob) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:33:48 GMT, Burkus Toobus <bur...@toobus.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Thanks for responding. By "non-routable IP" you mean IP addresses in the
>>192.168.0.1 type space, correct? I am, if only by telling each pc to let
>>the router handle IP assingments...
>
>Non-routable IP addresses are:
>
>10.x.x.x
>172.16.x.x - 162.31.x.x
^^^
>192.168.x.x
Actually, that's:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
Bob
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>Non-routable IP addresses are:
>>
>>10.x.x.x
>>172.16.x.x - 162.31.x.x
> ^^^
Typo.
>>192.168.x.x
>
>Actually, that's:
>
> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
I don't understand the point you are trying to make by explicitly
stating the range for "X".
That's what the "X" means - in the range 0 - 255.
Of course, you have to know that "X" is limited to eight bits, but
then that is expected.
Paul Newhouse
r...@houston.rr.com (Bob) writes:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:18:09 GMT, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>>>Non-routable IP addresses are:
>>>
>>>10.x.x.x
>>>172.16.x.x - 162.31.x.x
>> ^^^
>
> Typo.
>
>>>192.168.x.x
>>
>>Actually, that's:
>>
>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make by explicitly
> stating the range for "X".
>
> That's what the "X" means - in the range 0 - 255.
>
> Of course, you have to know that "X" is limited to eight bits, but
> then that is expected.
If you are going ot use a new notation convention then you should
at least let folks know what that notation convention is!
10.x.x.x doesn't convey enough information to imply that you mean
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
10.x.x.x could be any value between 10.0.0.0 and 10.255.255.255 with
any netmask from 255.255.255.252 and 255.0.0.0. How is one to know
what you mean? It didn't help that you, apparently, also made a typo
with 162.
Paul
--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.
John Navas
In <3aa11dd3....@news-server.houston.rr.com>, r...@houston.rr.com
(Bob) wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:18:09 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>>>Non-routable IP addresses are:
>>>
>>>10.x.x.x
>>>172.16.x.x - 162.31.x.x
>> ^^^
>
>Typo.
>
>>>192.168.x.x
>>
>>Actually, that's:
>>
>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>
>I don't understand the point you are trying to make by explicitly
>stating the range for "X".
>[SNIP]
My point is that "162.31.x.x" was a (serious) typo.
^^^
That's why I underlined it. ;-)
Bob
Newhouse) wrote:
>>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>>> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>> I don't understand the point you are trying to make by explicitly
>> stating the range for "X".
>> That's what the "X" means - in the range 0 - 255.
>> Of course, you have to know that "X" is limited to eight bits, but
>> then that is expected.
>If you are going ot use a new notation convention then you should
>at least let folks know what that notation convention is!
It is hardly a new notation. It may be new to you, but that doesn't
make it new.
>10.x.x.x doesn't convey enough information to imply that you mean
>10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
It does it you know anything about IP networking, which was my
assumption.
>10.x.x.x could be any value between 10.0.0.0 and 10.255.255.255
Uh, I think that is what it means (see above).
>with any netmask from 255.255.255.252 and 255.0.0.0.
I don't understand that statement.
BTW, notice the obvious typo you introduced.
>How is one to know what you mean?
Most people know what that notation means. John Navas was able to
figure it out.
>It didn't help that you, apparently, also made a typo with 162.
You are supposed to be smart enough to recognize it as a typo.
If you are not as smart as John Navas, then you might want to visit a
more rudimentary forum. :-)
Bob
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>My point is that "162.31.x.x" was a (serious) typo.
> ^^^
>That's why I underlined it. ;-)
Except it doesn't line up with proportional font. :-)
Mark J Strawcutter
>> ^^^
>>That's why I underlined it. ;-)
>
>Except it doesn't line up with proportional font. :-)
People who use proportional fonts for news/email are already confused,
so adding to the confusion shouldn't surprise them :-)
Mark
Paul Newhouse
r...@houston.rr.com (Bob) writes:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:21:42 GMT, rockhe...@bigbox.wan.vpn (Paul
> Newhouse) wrote:
>
>>>> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>>>> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>>>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
>
>>> I don't understand the point you are trying to make by explicitly
>>> stating the range for "X".
>
>>> That's what the "X" means - in the range 0 - 255.
>
>>> Of course, you have to know that "X" is limited to eight bits, but
>>> then that is expected.
>
>>If you are going ot use a new notation convention then you should
>>at least let folks know what that notation convention is!
>
> It is hardly a new notation. It may be new to you, but that doesn't
> make it new.
>
>>10.x.x.x doesn't convey enough information to imply that you mean
>>10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>
> It does it you know anything about IP networking, which was my
> assumption.
>
>>10.x.x.x could be any value between 10.0.0.0 and 10.255.255.255
>
> Uh, I think that is what it means (see above).
Now you are really fuzzing up what you are talking about. Were you
specifying a range or a specific address.
>>with any netmask from 255.255.255.252 and 255.0.0.0.
>
> I don't understand that statement.
>
> BTW, notice the obvious typo you introduced.
Feel free to highlight it for me. If you are referring to the .252
please explain a netmask of 255.255.255.254
Paul
>>How is one to know what you mean?
>
> Most people know what that notation means. John Navas was able to
> figure it out.
>
>>It didn't help that you, apparently, also made a typo with 162.
>
> You are supposed to be smart enough to recognize it as a typo.
>
> If you are not as smart as John Navas, then you might want to visit a
> more rudimentary forum. :-)
>
> Bob Knauer
>
> ---
> "You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
> Robert A. Heinlein
--