Futre networking issues possibly

[Loper]

As mentioned above, switches in any network larger than 2 machines are VASTLY supirior to hubs... that's a fact.

Here's the thing: If you're running SEQ, then you clearly have a Unix machine of some sort, most likely it's a Red Hat Linux box. That being said, you could *easily* defeat any limitations placed on you by the non-broadcast properties of a switch (which are good, I promise!) by simply using your Unix machine as a gateway/router/nat server for your windows (EQ) client.

On my network, small as it is, I have my Server (FreeBSD if you're curious) connecting to the internet via DSL using a (pos) Alcatel SpeedTouch modem. From there, it does NAT and serves internet (and files, etc) to the rest of my home network of 4 Windows boxes and 1 Sun. SEQ runs on the server itself and has no problems whatsoever sniffing packets on it's own network interfaces and also voids the need to transmit either X trafic or other unnecessary broadcast trafic across my local network..

It's very easy to set up. If you can get EQ working, you can get this working, I promise.

[Prime_Evil]

Very true.
However In my personal case, My server is not doing any Nat.
I run my Showeq able box on the backside of my network for no particular reason other then, it would be more work for me to use the server as a nat. but your statement is Very true..
Switches Are better becuase they do not waste bandwidth broadcasting duplicate info to the other machines. and using a linux/unix box to do your ip forwarding through it will avoid the problems with switches.

however How much load does showeq cuase on a system that is nating more then 5 puters?
I"m sure it would work fine.
I have not tried to run showeq AND nat on the same server becuase my current server is Small and weak but awsome for being a IP forwarding firewall type peice of plastic and metal =-)

[Loper]

My server is also very small; the smallest in my network by a good margin (P-200 with 64M Memory). NAT itself takes up nearly no processor cycles, even under realitivly heavy load, at least on FreeBSD (which handles NAT much differently than Linux, so my results may not match yours). X is the killer of my machine, although, once loaded and applications started, runs smoothly enough. My system normally hangs out at somewhere around 80% processor utilization, no matter how many or few machines are currently active (according to "top", ppp, which handles both my dialing and my NAT, and pppoa2, the utility that drives my USB modem, both use about 2% processor together with nearly no fluxuation.

By no means do I mean to say "No matter what you have going on, make your server NAT!". Rather, I was suggesting that if you have a small- to mid-sized home network that passes a lot of *local* trafic (Inet trafic is so slow that a hub works fine) that it may be in your best interested to go with a switch and have your unix machine NAT.

Another posibility, if you have more than one public IP address, is to have your server only NAT for the windows client(s) that are running EQ and being monitored by SEQ while the other machines access the Internet normally through their real IPs. This can be a little more difficult since the Windows EQ client will then be effectivly disconnected from the other machines and therefore has some undesireable routing issues, but is by no means undoable, just a little beyond "easy", at least in my opinion.

Hope some of this helps someone somewhere.

[Yueh]

If your house is wired right in the first place , your nat device is going to most likely be in a wiring closet like mine. Definitely reduces SEQ's usefulness if it is halfway across the house in a closed room

[ChainPuller]

If you want to be really paranoid.....

SEQ is a sniffer. Any machine that sees upstream packets can derive gateway info from packet headers. SEQ runs as root. Root controls network. Therefore, regardless of what hoops you jump through on the linux box to cripple it it could still send to the internet if a particularly L33T piece of hackware were accidentally incorporated into any of the software running on the linux box. The previous post suggesting cutting the send wire might be the only protection possible.

This is Not particulary likely in the Real World.

OK paranoids sleep well tonight.

[Ataal]

Wow, this has become quite a discussion, seems it strayed a bit from the original question/comment.

True, all retail combo 10/100 routers are switches. However, for an extra $40 or so, you can just add a 10/100 hub.

Typical setup is having a patch cable running from the uplink port on the hub to any free port on the router/switch.

[casey]

If your house is wired right in the first place , your nat device is going to most likely be in a wiring closet like mine. Definitely reduces SEQ's usefulness if it is halfway across the house in a closed room

the location of the box showeq runs on doesnt hamper showeq's usefulness at all. just export DISPLAY and run showeq on that box, but use it anywhere. X's client/server model is a good thing

[Yueh]

But that would require an Xserver in the vicinity of the EQ machine, if it is Linux why not just run SEQ there, if it isn't then it could possibly be *shudder* Exceed or something like it and we REALLY don't want to go there

The thread hijacking is complete!

[casey]

personally, i run show on my gateway box (x2) and export each instance to a different linux box near the eq box that the instance is sniffing. Reason for that is a run a switched network, and only the gateway can see the packet. X and NFS work so much better over a switched segment

and you may want to check out xwin32 if you ever need a windows xserver. much more lightweight than eXceed (although its been a long time since i used eXceed), and has a decent feature set.

[Prime_Evil]

Casey, How much is xwin32.. i have seen it but it appears to be around 150 dollars? that sound right ? or is there an older free version..

[KSti]

Im using a linksys 10/100 hub with only 3 100mb devices plugged into it. Didn't have to add a 10mb device to the hub to make the 100mbit plane a hub instead of a switch, as some had suggested. It is plugged into a linksys befsr41 cable router, and it also autosenses 100/hd on that port. My biggest problem setting up SEQ was with NIC speed on the new linux box. Had to use mii-tool in linux to get my nic to set the right speed, as that driver is the suck for autosensing.

Model name is Etherfast 10/100 5 port autosensing work group hub. Has the ports and indicator lights on front, power plug on back. It is deep grey unlike the newer blue/black boxes that comprise the rest of my network.

Hope this helps if you're looking for one.

[fryfrog]

you sure your cable router is a 10/100 port? since the cable modem is only 10, and the cable modem side of the router is only 10 as well it wouldn't make much since for the lan side to be 100mbit. there is just 10mbit for it to use and it isn't like it would be running any file services or anything. i suspect that your lan side of the router is running at only 10mbit :)

i have the same hub you are talking about. lights on the front, plugs on the front. kindof a light gray color. got power at the back. i have tested the 10mbit or only 100mbit and a lot of other ways on that particular hub. i am fairly sure (about 98%) that the way i have described it in the past is the way it is.

[KSti]

Ya, looking at the indicator lights on both the hub and the cable router, as well as the computers. All show 100mb/sec, the 10mb plane isnt being used.

Weird!

[cbreaker]

Few comments on some of the above thread.

- If you are on a switch, and can't do anything about that, remote X Clients work very very well, as someone mentioned. If the linux machine is in another room, no problem at all. There's a myriad of free or "trial use forever" X servers out there for windows. And of course you could use a XFree on a Linux box; whichever is closer to you when you play EQ.

- 100Mbit hubs are plentiful. (and cheap) Get a cheepy one on-line, like a D-Link hub or something. I have a cheepy "TREND Net" 100Mbit hub that works great. If you want to be extra careful (and you have no 10Mbit devices connected to the hub) you can get a "Dual Speed" hub, and avoid the "Dual Speed Switching Hub". The plain dual speed hubs are kind of a joke; there's no switch in between the 10 and 100Mbit ports. They can't talk to each other. However, they are cheaper and almost guarenteed not to switch =)

With any network with less than 20 workstations the real-world performance gains from switching is negledgable. That is unless you're doing long network operations constantly; I've yet to see a single person (or even 20 people on workstations) saturate a 100Mbit network under normal conditions. Or even 100 people. Most companies use a single T1 for an office of 500 or more people, and you still achieve decent download speeds from websites. And that's only 1.5Mbit!

- If you're already dooing NAT/Routing with an existing device or machine not capable of running ShowEQ, putting a linux box on your network and sending your traffic through that (and then through your existing solution if you require) wouldn't be a very large task. If you really want to run ShowEQ, and you can get it installed, I'm sure you could do this too. You could then output the X display to an alternate X server if the machine isn't good enough to display the graphics itself.

Anyhow, that's my 2.

-CB

[SagoS]

Gigabit all the way!

Well, if it made any difference anyway, stuck on good ol 56k now since we moved and now im just watching the bandwidth kick ass with my 200+ LD's in the past month.

Someone loan me like 3000 bux a month so I can get some type of OC or Tier line =P