DSL linux network newbie
Peter Hinkle
network is my linux box and the rest of them are XP machines. What I need
to know is whether or not it is better to run the dsl modem directly to the
netgear hub/switch and then to my linux box or is it better to run the dsl
modem straight out of the wall and into my linux box.If the latter is the
case, I would assume that I need to have two network cards in my linux box:
1 to recieve traffic from the dsl modem and 1 to send it to the network.
What are the pros and cons of each way? Is there a speed difference? Also,
my network is set up to where my linux box is 192.168.0.1. If I put in a
second card, how would I address both cards? The rest of my machines are
simply 2, 3, 4 ,5 on a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. Thanks for anyhelp
that you can give...peter
Karl Heyes
Sounds like the cable modem is doing NAT, so either way is ok. There
shouldn't be any speed difference either way, the bottleneck is the
external link.
A possible setup for the latter case you mantioned is
modem <-- 192.168.0.x --> linux <-- 192.168.1.x ---> XP's
which means you will need two NICs for this setup.
karl.
David Efflandt
Does your dsl modem use dhcp to give you an IP or is that just a static IP
that you set yourself?
If your dsl uses pppoe (I think Earthlink does), then the IP you set for
the nic to the dsl modem is not used for anything (except to bring up the
nic). So that IP (I used 172.16.1.1) is not important, but should be a
different private network than you use anywhere else. It is best to have
a second nic for your internal network to make sure that you can
firewall/masq what you want to. If you have an existing firewall setup
for a dialup, that should work for pppoe (which uses ppp0 interface).
For more info see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/earthlink
I am using SuSE 7.3 with Efficient 5360 dsl modem on SBC/Ameritech and it
was easy to set up pppoe in YaST2 or rp-pppoe (Roaring Penquin) with its
tkpppoe interface in X.
--
David Efflandt - All spam is ignored - http://www.de-srv.com/
http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/ http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/
Mark & Kristi Wagoner
> the nic to the dsl modem is not used for anything (except to bring up the
> nic). So that IP (I used 172.16.1.1) is not important, but should be a
> different private network than you use anywhere else. It is best to have
> a second nic for your internal network to make sure that you can
> firewall/masq what you want to. If you have an existing firewall setup
> for a dialup, that should work for pppoe (which uses ppp0 interface).
I have a newby question: What does pppoe offer? I have a DSL connection
but am not starting pppoe. Everything seems to work ok, but should I have
it enabled?
Rod Smith
In article <MyZ58.8063$By6.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
If you're saying that you've ALREADY got your local network *AND* the
DSL connection up and running, then it sounds like you've got a DSL
modem that functions as a router. If so, then just add a hub or switch
and plug all the computers into it. This should work well. Somehow I
don't think this is what you mean, though....
If you don't yet have the DSL set up, then you'll need to find out if
the modem you'll get functions as a router or as a bridge. If the
latter (which is much more common, especially for residential DSL),
then I'd recommend using NAT to make all your systems available. This
can be done by sticking the Linux computer between the modem and the
rest of your network, or by using a standalone broadband router. Check
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/reviews/ for reviews of many such
devices. The separate router approach is better if you don't understand
the intricacies of Linux security.
--
Rod Smith, rods...@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux & multi-OS configuration
Rod Smith
In article <a3a7it$655$1...@genma.iac.net>,
"Mark & Kristi Wagoner" <mwag...@iac.net> writes:
>
> I have a newby question: What does pppoe offer? I have a DSL connection
> but am not starting pppoe. Everything seems to work ok, but should I have
> it enabled?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
In this particular case, PPPoE not only doesn't offer any advantage,
but trying to use it will at best waste your time and at worst disrupt
your existing connection. PPPoE, DHCP, and static IP address
assignments are the three most popular ways to give IP addresses and
related information to computers on broadband connections. Each ISP
selects *ONE* of these (or occasionally supports two in different
markets or for different types of accounts). Attempting to use PPPoE on
a system that uses static IP addresses or DHCP will get you nowhere,
because the ISP isn't set up to use PPPoE. The fact that your system is
working without PPPoE means that your ISP is using DHCP or static IP
addresses, so PPPoE is unnecessary.
Peter Hinkle
Rod, I do have a connection up. This is my exact situation:
I have a modem connected to the wall. That dsl modem is connected to a
netgear hub/switch and so are the three computers on my network. One of the
machines is a linux box that serves mail to the other machines. The other
machines get their internet from the linux machine. The question is: If I
put a second nic in the linux box and run the dsl modem directly into the
linux box insead of directly in the hub/switch will I get a better/worse
faster/slower connection? peter
j sendler
what exactly does this mean?:
> The other machines get their internet from the linux machine.
So You're routing through the Linux box anyway, right? (And then, You
have two IP aliases on the NIC.) - If so:
> put a second nic in the linux box and run the dsl modem directly into the
> linux box insead of directly in the hub/switch will I get a better/worse
> faster/slower connection? peter
You will get a better and faster connection:
It will be faster, because if You're routing through the linux box, each
packet from the network to the outside world and back will first be sent
to the router, and from there to the DSL modem, all of that on the same
physical network. Thus, You double the traffic here.
It will be better, because You can use the linux box as a firewall.
If, on the other hand, Your "DSL modem" is in fact a DSL router (which
allows connection sharing for e. g. 4 PCs), You can also benefit from
the setup You are suggesting; the speed advantage will be minimal,
though, and not worth the effort (on Your net with only 3 boxes).
Cheers, Jack.
Peter Hinkle
Jack, when I set up the lan on the windows machines. i selected the option
that the machine gets it's internet connection from another amchine on the
network. That is all I meant by that. The fact that the dsl modem is
running dirctly into the hub instead of the linux box may mean that the
windows machines are getting their internet directly from the modem.
I want to set it up with the dsl modem running directly into the linux box.
How do I address the second nic? MY current setup is:
Linux box 192.168.0.1
windows box 192.168.0.2
winXP box: 192.168.0.3
When I add the other nic to the linux box what address do I give it? What
will my default route then be? Currently it is 192.168.0.1
Sorry about all of the questions. Maybe i am making this harder than it is.
Itried this setup when I first got the modem and couldn't get it to work
for anything with two nics. I'm sure it was something I had configured
wrong. My download speeds with my current set up are a slow 30kbps. I have
to believe that has to do with the fact that I am running directly into the
hub. Thanks a ton for your help...peter
Rod Smith
In article <Ki568.9893$ks5.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Peter Hinkle <drum...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
> Rod, I do have a connection up. This is my exact situation:
> I have a modem connected to the wall. That dsl modem is connected to a
> netgear hub/switch and so are the three computers on my network.
Cutting a bit from a subsequent post of yours, you write:
> The fact that the dsl modem is
> running dirctly into the hub instead of the linux box may mean that the
> windows machines are getting their internet directly from the modem.
> I want to set it up with the dsl modem running directly into the linux box.
> How do I address the second nic? MY current setup is:
> Linux box 192.168.0.1
> windows box 192.168.0.2
> winXP box: 192.168.0.3
I'm afraid you're still leaving us guessing here. Try posting the
manufacturer and model of your modem, the result of the output of the
"ifconfig" and "route -n" commands on Linux when you're connected to
the Internet, and tell us whether you've installed any PPPoE software
on your Windows boxes.
On the whole, it sounds like one of two things is going on:
1) Your DSL modem is functioning as a network router, meaning that all
your computers have access to the Internet using the router as a
gateway system. There are two sub-cases here:
a) Your Windows systems are configured to use the modem as a gateway
system.
b) Your Windows systems are configured to use the Linux system as a
gateway. This will reduce performance.
2) Your DSL modem is functioning as a network bridge, your ISP is using
PPPoE, and Linux is running a PPPoE client package and is configured
as a NAT router, through which your Windows systems have access.
> One of the
> machines is a linux box that serves mail to the other machines. The other
> machines get their internet from the linux machine.
In the preceding clip (which was from an earlier post), you said that
the Windows machines "get their Internet directly from the modem."
> The question is: If I
> put a second nic in the linux box and run the dsl modem directly into the
> linux box insead of directly in the hub/switch will I get a better/worse
> faster/slower connection?
In neither case would it make a huge difference in speed. In case #1a,
you'd reduce the speed minimally (probably not measurably) for the
Windows systems. In case #1b, you'd improve performance, but switching
to configuration #1a would be better. In case #2, you'd improve
performance minimally, especially when your local network is under
heavy load.
j sendler
I think You should follow Rod's hints with "ifconfig" and "route -n" and
give us the output of those.
Peter Hinkle wrote:
> Linux box 192.168.0.1
> windows box 192.168.0.2
> winXP box: 192.168.0.3
> will my default route then be? Currently it is 192.168.0.1
> [...]
> wrong. My download speeds with my current set up are a slow 30kbps. I have
"route -n"; I doubt that the default route of Your linux box is .1, this
points back to itself. And, what is the "Standard Gateway" of the Win
machines? (The default route of the linux router should point somewhere
outside of Your private network; or does Your modem have an IP (which
would make it a router...) ?)
The 30kbps lead me to the assumption that You actually _do_ route the
Win boxes through linux...
Anyway, more input, please... ;)
Cheers, Jack.