Following up on Jot's chastisement of my use of Zone Alarm, i've started looking at routers and creating a home network. I fall into the category of people who didn't think a router was necessary for only one computer, as I can't say I was fully aware of the additional security benefits it provides. But a home network seems like it would benefit us a bit so that that come next spring when LBA arrives both of us can feasibly work from home at the same time. I was under the impression any of the cable feeds for cox could be used to establish an internet connection, but i guess that's not the case because of IP address hangups?
(note to clarify: my meaning was that if we needed/wanted to connect two computers, we could just get a second modem rather than a router, but, as JT notes, cox may have issues with that, and there are additional benefits to the router than having 2 modems)Anyway, in the choice between wired or wireless it does seem like the latter is the way to go. In the handful of hours I've spent on the topic so far, I've noted two things:
- Routers, by consumer reviews, are only slightly higher thought of than internet security software. Dave Pogue notes that up to 30% of networking gear is returned. This gives me pause of buying by my preferred method of shopping (online.)
- It doesn't seem worthwhile to spend much time researching routers (but I do it anyway), as it seems common and easy to settle for the Corolla of routers, the Linksys WRT 54G (or GS), particularly since i don't have the desire to spend too much on it.
Actually, in the case of the latter point, I think I did find something better, the
Buffalo G54, but the company has an
injunction to prevent it from selling in the US at the moment (and the sales price might be higher than I think it is). So that brings things back to the Linksys I guess.
I haven't delved into network adapters yet, but I'm under the impression i don't really need to as the router will be next to the PC, so i might as well leave that wired. So then the only obstacle is making sure Joanne's work laptop can connect to the network.
Good times.
Posts
13 comments:
Wireless is the way to go for your home network. We've had our wireless router (Linksys) for at least 5 years and have never had a moment's problem with it.
Given the combined geekery of the Aspinall household, I'm stunned you're not already all networked up and doing direct loads into your new fancy-schmancy home entertainment area.
Well, the only need we really have for networking is when joanne works from home and I can't stand the time away from the computer. With our current setup, there's little reason to go wireless to the home entertainment system since it's right next to the computer--the audio and VGA cables were ~$20, maybe less. The only benefit of removing those connections is separating them grounding wise, which is a whole different issue which I don't completely understand (we have a ground loop problem which I've somewhat resolved).
"combined geekery of the Aspinall household"???? How did I get pulled into this???!!!
Mrs. Aspinall, your spreadsheet skillz alone would put you in the Geek category.
And further, in *my* household, geek is a compliment.
Ok, I'm not sure how you know about my spreadsheet skills, but I must admit that I am pretty proud of them. So I will admit to some geekery. Thanks for the compliment!
VOTS League draft spreadsheet. Nuff said.
Ah, shucks, I forgot about that...
Keith wrote:
"I was under the impression any of the cable feeds for cox could be used to establish an internet connection, but i guess that's not the case because of IP address hangups?"
You have made a complete English sentence, but said nothing here.
You can use any cox cable link. Cable modem into that. Instead of the cable going to your computer, you send it to the linksys. Then you plug your systems into that. The setup is pretty easy, only complication might be mac address cloning, but that's still easy.
I'm not sure what "IP address hangups" would be. Cox does use DHCP to get your address. If they were to change your IP you would lose connections, but that would just require you to reconnect any stateful connections you had. Non-stateful would be unaffected.
I have the 54G. You want it to have wireless, because that has the 4 hard ports and wireless. The flexibility of having wireless in the future is nice...especiall for an extra $10? As an example, I can get the WII to connect wirelessly fairly easily.
My only problem with the 54G is that I'm on my third one. After a few years it will just give up the ghost. Then again, that is over the last 10 years or so.
Chastisement? Come on...you've heard me bitch...that barely counts for "commenting" :)
-Jot
Wow, thanks to the LTJ-JT exchange, this may eclipse the LBA announcement in comments!
Re Jot's comment:
In rereading what i wrote, the element i forgot to include was multiple access points through different modems (ie, a connection/modem in the TV room and another in one of the bedrooms assuming we're routerless). The "IP address hangup" refers to me thinking that the incoming Cox feed can't be accessed by two different modems, whereas previously I thought that it could. I assume this is a problem because of the IP address issues, but that's just a guess on my part. I'm a bit out of my element here.
I don't understand your last comment. The router, wireless or not, acts as the central hub for your home network, funneling (routing) all your different connection points to the ISP through one IP address (to the outside world), and splitting up the incoming traffic to the proper endpoints inside your home network. Each of your home computers/whatever-devices-you-hook-up-to-the-network establishes a connection to the router and the router takes care of the details of routing traffic to and from the devices. The wireless part is just another medium through which they communicate the traffic.
This is why I'm not a writer--I exercise so much brevity that i don't really make clear what it is I'm trying to say. ie it makes sense to me.
We are currently routerless, as I didn't see the need for one. I was under the impression that one could connect two different computers to two different cable modems in the house. This is not possible, correct? Hence the need for a router if we were to connect two computers, as well as whatever security benefits it provides.
so what are we all at, about 45 minutes of productivity today?
ah, I get it.
"two cable modems in the house"
Strictly speaking, yes this is possible. However, Cox would charge you twice as much because in their eyes, you have two data pipes going into (and coming out of) your house. A router lets you aggregate multiple connections *inside* your network into a single connection going outside your network (although it does much more stuff too). The thing that physically connects to your Cox cable is called a cable modem. As Jot pointed out, you connect a router to your cable modem and then you get the ability to connect multiple things to your router. Kind of like a splitter. Actually, exactly like a splitter. The router mixes your individual connections together and sends them out, then splits apart the incoming traffic into streams for each device. It's not magic, but it's cool.
I think it's only 45 minutes of productivity in the aggregate.
Ok, I'm done now.
What JT said.
The linksys box will do NAT (network address translation) allowing multiple boxes to access the network at the same time. I can't think of a good reason to have two cable modems.
Post a Comment