can my xp pro (no service pak) serve both
cable internet connection and dialup connection?

Right now it is serving dialup connection to 3 or 4 box LAN.

I would like to keep my dialup connection at least temporarily
active while integrating a cable connection as a test.
Specifically I want to test cable's local latency and performance
before I sever ties with dialup ISP and telco 2nd line.

I would like to be able to tell XP to use the dialup for it's specific
purposes while telling XP to provide the cable connection for LAN use.


I have seen high latency and frequent news server timeouts with binary
collection with this cable isp and am wary of them. Even online gaming
can be a real issue with online gaming at peak times with a crappy
cable internet service.

Thanks.

Flaremph wrote:
What does that have to do with DHCP?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:34:14 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

This XP box tells internet traffic which box to go on the LAN.
It is 192.168.0.1
It translates packets from internet IP address (XP box with modem) to
LAN IP address ( computers with network cards).

Is the use of the term DHCP incorrect in this context?

Thanks!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:15:59 -0500, Flaremph <Flaremph@wumpherf.com> wrote:

Yes. DHCP simply allocates legitimate ip addresses.
What you have described is a NAT box acting as a router...

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:52:11 GMT, daytripper
<day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

Will my NAT box which is acting as a router function properly in its
role if it has both a broadband cable line to the internet and a
dialup modem connected to the internet?

My cable connection will be using a cable modem.
That modem will plug directly into my network HUB and not my NAT box,
correct?
So then if I want a MS Windows machine on my LAN to connect using
cable, I would run Internet Connection wizard from IE.
It would still use IP from NAT box.....

If I would choose to run my cable connection through my NAT box, that
would be possible, correct?
I would do this by adding an additional network card in it and
following cable ISP's instructions for setup.
An advantage to this would be that my entire LAN would be invisible to
cable ISP and internet, correct?
A possible disadvantage would be some online games might not like
this.

Please pass along any insight, thanks!

daytripper wrote:
Precisely. I don't know how clever XP is about routing where there
are two valid routes to the Internet (dialup and cable), but it might
be possible to control the process by assigning costs in the routing
table.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Flaremph wrote:
If I understand correctly what you are saying and intending to do, you
have it wrong.

Any box on the LAN will need to route through the (presumably ICS) NAT
box (or have its own WAN IP address).

Getting a local address is only half the battle -- every transaction
then needs to be translated from local to WAN addressing.

Assuming you're talking about a home setup (and since you mention
gaming, I have to assume so) that's almost certainly what you want.

Some games might require tunneling through the NAT, but that can create
a severe security risk.

to route with your PC.

Alas, the original question re mixing dialup and cable seems to have
fallen by the wayside, and could complicate things immensely by
introducing questions about precisely what you want done with any
particular packet. I generally recommend keeping network configurations
as simple as possible and no simpler.

All JMHO, and I'm not sure I understand precisely all that you've
said.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:39:19 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

I appreciate your attempt to decipher this miserably horridly mess of
grisly and haphazardly thrown together bits of poorly placed jargon.
As I am unable to even string together a properly placed adverb and so
on and so forth.

Alas I have achieved my objective.

It may be better for me to approach this with one connection active at
a time.

Certainly will be enough to occupy me for a day or two at a time.

Perhaps even a spasm or two in a Linux group may be interesting.

Peace and salutations ye gods of the macabre RJ45 y RJ11.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:10:15 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

Routing table....

A morsel to chew on.

Thanks, you are a gentleman and a scholar.