Is ICS the best solution?

[iNo712]

I've got my home networked and sharing a cable modem using ICS, but I was wondering if there was something better or more secure than ICS to share the internet?

I know if it ain't broke...but I was just curious and wanted to learn something new. Thanks for any input.

Oops, forgot to mention some info:
All pc's are running windows and the main box is w2k. If you need more info, let me know. Oh yeah, I don't want to use a router...just a server

 

[67gt500]

how about a router or linux.

 

[iNo712]

I was thinking about linux, but it may take me awhile to learn and I don't want to cut off my roomates from the internet. Thanks though...

 

[67gt500]

well if you have 100-150 dollars you can build an adequate machine to install mandrake on and run it as a dhcp server.

No monitor needed really, and you wouldn't have to implement it until it was working.

 

[bex0rs]

Or you could buy an SMC Barricade, have $50 left over, and save on the power bill.

~bex0rs

 

[Wik]

Or you can dig up an old 486 and stick Freesco on it. Cheap, easy, and a great router.

 

[iNo712]

I am very much the linux newbie, so if there is a lot of configuration involved or if the distribution does not recognize my NIC then I may have some serious problems.

Also I am running RC5 for Team Anandtech 24/7 so I'm used to the electric bill of keeping one computer on at all times. If the routers get cheap enough, I may consider, but I think I am leaning towards a linux solution.

Why linux over W2K? Can't my W2K box do the same things that a linux server can do? I guess this brings up another question, is there another way to share the internet besides ICS in W2K?

Thanks again...

 

[MulLa]

Yes W2K server family have what is called. Network Address Translation (NAT). It lives under RRAS (Routing & Remote Access). It's pretty easy to setup and get going. It's somewhat limited at times but I am sure it is enough for general home use.

 

[bex0rs]

Why linux over W2K?

It runs better on lower end hardware. The other compelling reason is that the OS and nat software are free, however you should also consider how much your time is worth. If you're interested in learning about networking, it could be a valuable experience. If not, use ICS / purchase a standalone product.


Can't my W2K box do the same things that a linux server can do?

For a price, probably.


is there another way to share the internet besides ICS in W2K?

Sygate, Winroute, Wingate, and Winproxy, to name a few.


~bex0rs

 

[Wik]

Freesco is a Linux distro that fits on a floppy. Very easy to set up. No linux knowledge is needed. It supports allot NICs and it is easy to add the linux drivers to the ones that it does not. Stick a hard drive in and you can add things like the distributed client. Kinda cool having your router add to your stats.

 

[67gt500]

win2k vs. linux? well.. win2k on older hardware is not really recommended.. you can run linux on 16 or 32 meg of memory and get away with it.

also something about controlling an OS from just the command line is just..very time saving.

think of it this way, with a linux solution you will learn and understand how the process is working. With a win2k solution you may set it up and configure it without learning a thing about how it is working.

 

[wonkajunk]

Computer, old? Why waste your time and resources. Go to CompUSA or Best Buy(Ebay is better) fork over 120 bones (80 on Ebay)for a Linksys or Netgear 4 port(or 8 port if they crammed you in a college dorm) gateway/switch/router. IT IS THE BEST SOLUTION! Love linux , but why waste time configuring it? Although the experience would be priceless. Plug and play is what I say.

WwWonka

 

[67gt500]

i said linux or router

router if space is an issue

linux if you want to expand your horizons.

both will accomplish the same task.

 

[iNo712]

Ok, thanks for all the input people. I have an old pc just collecting dust so I think I may go with the linux solution. As far as Freesco, that is just a small linux distro used specifically for routing, right? I think I will be better off with a more mainstream distro like Mandrake or Red Hat.

A couple other things, I've heard of allowing ssh connections using putty or some other utility, would this be hard to configure? Also MulLa, what types of things are limited by NAT and RRAS?

 

[MulLa]

Well NAT is a function of RRAS as RRAS covers more than mere NAT internet sharing. The limitation that I've came across in NAT was its inability to open a range of ports as some other routers are capable of. So I can't conduct netmeeting / icq file transfer as the necessary ports can't be opened

 

[67gt500]

If you select all that crap on the right hand side during the mandrake installation it will basically have Open-SSH and apache running for you when the installation is over. The apache directory is in like /var/www or something

and you can ssh right into it from anywhere and get root access.

 

[navylinux]

I would go with the Linux solution for two reasons.

1. Linux is secure and stable. Win2K can be made secure, but stable is ???(Blue screen of Death).

2. Linux is easy to set up as long as all of your hardware is supported. Read the FAQ's before you do it. Try and get all the documentation before you start the install. Read some of the linux bbs before you start.
www.linuxnewbie.org
www.linuxjunior.org
There are a couple of others also.

Use linux as a learning experience also if you want or plan to work in the corporate IT field.

Good luck on your choice.

 

[Workin']

Don't even bother screwing with linux. Get a router/switch. SMC Barricade is excellent, plug and play more or less.

Ok, get the router, then play with linux. But the router approach is sooooo much simpler.

 

[Southerner]

In general, a dedicated hardware solution is going to be faster than a softare-based solution. To answer this specific question from my own experience:

When I got my "self-install" DSL package, it came with a 3-Com PCI modem that only supported Windows. I grabbed an old hard drive and did a fresh install of Windows 98 just to serve as an ICS host. Everything worked fine, but I was really disappointed with the speeds I was seeing from the DLS Speed Test sites (with and without Zone Alarm enabled).

So I bought an SMC 4-port router (found the $49 deal in the hot deals forum) and an external 3Com ADSL router. After switching over, the same DSL Speed Test sites were showing a 2x-4x speed increase. It's antecdotal, but the download speeds I've seen before and after the switch (ISO downloads to burn, newsgroup downloads) back it up.

I'm sure a Linux host running as a firewall and NAT (IP Masq) host would be faster than the same box running Win98, but it's not going to be nearly as fast as dedicated hardware (things like being able to forward packets before the enture packet has been received can be big advantages on the part of the hardware -- remember that the packets on a software-based host will need to be completely received, then passed up the protocol stack where a decision is made, then passed back down, etc. All of this leads to additional latency and reduced speeds).

Difference between Linux and Win98 as far as download speeds go? When X-windows is up and running on my 200 MHz Pentium Redhat 7.0 box (Gnome, Ximian, etc) Netscape can maintain 2 simultaneous 80-90k downloads; my 400 MHz P-II Win98 Laptop can maintain 2 simultaneous 49-55k downloads. Still antecdotal, but (I think) telling.

I say choose the hardware. It's worth the effort to learn something about routing, but a decent CCNA book ($50 -- call it part of the savings over building a Linux routing box) will teach you more than dinking around with an old PC.

All, of course, IMHO.

 

[Southerner]

Whoops -- forgot to comment on the other point of your post: Security.

A linux box can be locked down to be reasonably tight, but you'll need to do some research to do so. Get it configured the way you want it (*unplugged* from the network), install tripwire and save the files to a write-protected floppy, and have a cron script run tripwire against the system every so often. That way you'll find out sooner when your box is compromised.

Windown 2000 looks like a decent product (though I have less experience with it than with NT) and it can likely also be locked down reasonably well (do a Google search on the NSA's recently released recommendations for locking it down). I've got my doubts as to how secure it really is due to Microsoft's longstanding history, but people more competent than I are willing to bet careers on it, so who cares what I think?

If you're really wanting a secure *nix, try OpenBSD -- its reason for existence is security. (Note that to find an ISO you'll need to go somewhere like LinuxISO as they aren't available from the OpenBSD ftp site.) Another option is to use one of the scaled down Linux kernels that's designed as a firewall/NAT router (there are a number of different projects that seem good). I would *not* go with Redhat unless you know what you're doing. Remember -- complexity and security are inversely proportional.

Redhat exists to make a more "useful" distribution, not a more secure one. I love Redhat (I'd get the RHCE if my boss would pay for it), but it's not the distro of choice for the role you're describing here.

Again, all IMHO.

 

[wonkajunk]

One more thought here, go here..

http://www.linuxrouter.org/

There is a download for a PURE linux OS based that runs off a floppy that is bolied down just for routing.

As for W2K, love it. Have been using it since it's inception and will continue to do so, (of course I have CyGwin on it for those 'nix moments). It is by far the best thing EVER to come out of Redmond, to bad Bill never found it a good consumer based product. Instead he takes the greatness of W2K(very secure, and easier than Linux to make secure) and buys it a cheap Motel 8 room with Windows ME. So in the next months expect the bastard child of that great OS paired with that other piss poor OS, and Bill has called it Windows XP.

WwWonka