Will this work?

[E2EKI3L]

Hey guys, I have a dlink DSL-300 modem and I want to have some users on my network connect straight through it, and some behind the gateway computer, ie.



would this work?

so far my attempts are that the gateway PC's can connect, but the direct ones won't work (the obtain their addresses from the dsl modem fine I think)

any help appreciated

edit: could it be that the modem only let's one PC connect through it at a time??

[dillusional]

It depends on how you are wanting to share the internet connection. We will need details about who is connecting and what OS they are using too.

[E2EKI3L]

apparently the modem will only let one user connect through it.

How can those details be relavant though? if I set the default gateway and preferred DNS to the gateway pc ip they should connect through it no?

and sharing is via ICS or wingate

[grill]

i believe you should have the modem plugged directly into the gateway computer, what OS are u using on it?

[influx]

The DLINK DSL 300+ will assign an IP address via dhcp to all computers connected to it, or something. You need to connect it to a PC, not a switch.

[E2EKI3L]

the modem assigns IP addresses to each computer that I set the ip's to auto assign, i can staticly assign them

grill: connecting the modem straight to the gateway pc would not allow any computers to directly connect except the gateway

and it works connecting the modem straight to a switch, but I'm thinking it only gives internet access to one computer, which is first in first served :/

[mute]

internet -> cable modem -> gateway pc -> switch ->
pc1
pc2
pc3
pc4

or you could just buy a router with an inbuilt switch and have

internet -> cable modem -> router ->
pc1
pc2
pc3
pc4

that's what i've got setup using a netgear rp114 (~$150)

[E2EKI3L]

fark did anyone read my post??

that I want to have SOME behind the gateway and the other directly connected. I know how to get them all through the gateway

[betacase]

i may be wrong, but as far as i know, the modem will only assign one ip address, so you will have to run all the computers through a gateway. i'm pretty sure this is because ISP's only have a certain number of IP's to give away, so they assign one per customer. i'm sure some ISP's will let you purchace more, but i doubt that it what you want.

[mpot]

Originally posted by betacase
i may be wrong, but as far as i know, the modem will only assign one ip address, so you will have to run all the computers through a gateway. i'm pretty sure this is because ISP's only have a certain number of IP's to give away, so they assign one per customer. i'm sure some ISP's will let you purchace more, but i doubt that it what you want.

The default config of the DSL-300+ is bridged mode.

That means it'll pass one real IP address onto a single PC connected to it.

If you want to run multiple PCs behind it, you need to have a single PC connected to the modem, running NAT/ICS, and have all other PCs behind it.

I have a DSL-300+, with a Smoothwall box behind it doing the NAT-ing and firewalling.

Cheers,
Martin.

[betacase]

thanks for clearing that up. i've only had experience with Optusnet Cable, which i am currently also running though a smoothwall box (with much help from your website )

[aXis]

Originally posted by mpot
The default config of the DSL-300+ is bridged mode.

AFAIK, you can also run it in a non-bridged mode, and use PPPoE software on the Gateway and directly connected PC.

Whether E2EKI3L's ISP allows multiple logins is a different story. If it's allowed, then neither layout is optimal - you'd really need a blend of the two:

* Switch plugged into the DSL-300
* Direct PC and Gateway plugged into the switch, both running PPPoE software
* Regular PC plugged into the gateway's second interface.


I'd really reccomending having them all behind a linux firewall/gateway, and using configuring the firewall (eg port forwarding) to allow the sort of direct connections you're after. Its far safer and mre consolidated.

[E2EKI3L]

i thought that might be the case. Ah well, I couldn't get the port forwarding to work correctly, and this was the next easiest method if it worked. thanks for the help anyways