• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NIC to NIC (Crossed)

D

dedejean

Member
Hi guys. This is my setup:

HOST PC
3 NICs on Host PC.
- 1 NIC1 to aDSL
- 1 NIC2 to 1 Laptop
- 1 NIC3 to another PC

* NIC1 (Lets call it DSL) is shared.
* NIC2 and NIC3 are BRIDGED (lets call it LAN).

LAN is set to:
IP: 192.168.0.1
Default Gateway: -
Primary DNS: 192.168.0.1

Protocols:
TCP/IP protocol, NETBUI, IPX/SPX, File printer sharing.


Now, for the client PCs...
CLIENT PCS
2 client PCs have the same settings, except for IP of course.

IP: 192.168.0.x (2 and 3)
Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1
DNS: 192.168.0.1

Protocols:
TCP/IP protocol, NETBUI, IPX/SPX, File printer sharing.

ALL PCs same workgroup: WORKGROUP
Windows firewall off. Norton Internet security.

NOW THE PROBLEM

* good thing is, Internet is shared.

1. File sharing can be done only on the HOST PC. (meaning, i can copy files to and from client using host. But if i am using Client PC, i cannot get files from HOST PC)
2. Client PC cannot see HOST PC. (can see it in windows explorer, but when clicked... "no priviledge etc)
3. Host can ping Client. Client cannot ping HOST.
4. Cannot see each other in LAN games

Any ideas?

1 Client and Host using WINXP Pro SP2
1 Client using WinXp Home SP2
 
can you explain your use for the host pc? Is it running a firewall, vpn, etc or are you just using it for routing/dhcp/dns? If its the latter, why not just spend $20 and avoid these headaches?
 
For an experiment---try turning the Norton firewall off---which will then probably cause the sp2 firewall to go on---then turn the sp2 firewall off---once you have them both off--see if the clients can then ping the host.---if it ends up being the Norton firewall--- you have to learn to set firewall rules to allow the access you need.

But a test like that will at least give you an indication if its firewall problems.
 
thanks. already found the culprit... it was indeed the NOrton Internet security

@jlazzaro
yeah, i share dsl to two other PCs. Since my nforce3ultra has 2 builtin NICs, i resulted to buying another NIC to accomodate 2pcs, instead of a hub. Buying a hub is definitely an instant solution, but i just wanna solve this one... it bugs me because its a simple setup.

@Lemon Law
thanks... did what you suggested. I had 1 firewall running, nvidia firewall, and 1 Norton Internet Security and... I alreadry configured Nvidia properly, didnt think that internet security will be the culprit. Now, i added 192.168.0.2-4 to Internet Security's accepted IPs... its now working perfect. Thanks
 
So I guess the idea is.

I have a small sedan and need to bring a tone of sand to my yard.

I would not buy a truck; I would buy a second small sedan and bring the sand in two small cars that were not design to carry send to begin with.

The issue is Not saving money; the issue is that a client OS is not design to do such a job in an efficient stable manner.

So switch to Windows 2003 or spen $20 on a Router.

:sun:
 
But at least dedejean won't have to worry about the $20.00 router crapping out---like $20.00 router seem to do at alarming frequencies.

That was a firewall problem being solved---not an OS problem.---maybe dedejean's network may not seem efficent to some---but where is
any evidence that it won't be stable?
 
There hundreds of thousands (by now probably millions) of inexpensive Routers that work very well.

Most of the one that fails, falls under the same category as my Sedan analogy above.

E.g. Entry level Routers in fraternity houses when 25 horny guys use P2p at the same time.

On the other hand, using software Router on a client OS is notoriously calling for eventual trouble.

ICS on a Client OS was developed to share Dialup connection at the turn of the century, when consumer broadband was not in existence.

:sun:
 
To JackMDS,

In what way will ICS fail?---please explain.---lots of things were designed centuries ago--and still work very well today.

And please don't take this as flaming anyone---I do honestly want to know why you are so down on ICS.--because when and if I get broadband, I will have some network
modifications to do in any event---but at no point in time do I antisipate my lan will get larger than two computers.

But I also fall into the group of people who don't have broadband yet---be it dsl, cable, or wi-max---its simply unavailable in my area. Period.

And I find ICS to be simple, reliable, and extremely stable---and other than an intermittent NIC on one computer that is now replaced---it has given me no trouble.
And even that intermittent NIC got tamed by implementing a static client address.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JackMDS,

In what way will ICS fail?---please explain.---lots of things were designed centuries ago--and still work very well today.
Click to expand...
If you have dialup, and a network of few computers, it would work OK.

:sun:
 
To JackMDS,

Your answer still ducks the question of why ICS will fail at a higher bandwidth--admittedly I don't have that higher bandwidth---but from what I can see its the router that fails
based on the posts I see detailing the number of router failures under the pressure of bandwidth---vs. NIC's that seem to be either good or bad from the word go.

But in what ways will the ICS software of an OS like windows XP crack under that similar pressure?

Granted that a router is almost necessary when the network gets large---as it is the OP devotes a NIC on the host computer to his dsl connection--and another two to maintain the two client computers.---but the OP would still need one NIC mimimum---so in his setup---two NIC's are doing the job of one router---and your assertion seems to be that two NIC's plus ICS is less stable than one router under a higher bandwidth.
 
Hi guys. Interesting discussion.

First, want you guys to know that my setup is 1 HOST and 2 CLIENTS.. sharing a broadband 768kbps aDSL connection. My HOST PC is running on an (JUST AN) Athlon 64 3000+ (red my sig). 2 PCs (host and 1 client) played MMOG game over the internet while downloading torrents, and the other client is gathering files while doing general web browsing simultaneously for 4hours. I am the one using the HOST and there are no problems encountered AT ALL... Although i did notice system load to increase on my HOSt, which is expected, but nothing the aged-Athlon64 3000+ cant handle.

Another reason why i wanted to complete this setup is because, there are two ON-BOARD 1gBIT LAN on my mobo, and also with one of the client's mobo. Considering these ADD-ON FEATURES, 1Gbit router today are still not that cheap. And we share a lot of files every week.

I wouldn't know how other ways of sharing internet would compare because i dont have point of comparison... but ICS on WinXP works fine. Since my setup is considerably small... everything is great.

@JackMDS
i see your point on the efficiency of getting a router... but what i dont get is... WHY BOTHER? If my 3 PCs are already equipped with what they need (especially the gbit onboard lan), and the end result will not differ more than 0.0001ms, why bother right? I just get 2 crossed cables, and plug each in... do simple setup.. and BOOM... AS GOOD AS ROUTER/SWTICH SETUP (GIVEN 3PCs). In fact, since the cpu load hit isnt that significant, i think this setup is more efficient. Dont you think?
 
At the risk of seeming argumenative---we have an UNSUPPORTED assertion by JackMDS that windows ICS will fail under high bandwidth---but will work under low bandwidth like dialup.

So far we have a response from dedejean---saying windows ICS is holding up just fine under high bandwidth.

We have an alternate response from SuperVixen---suggesting a Linux box as another way to acheive a router---implying Linux may be more stable than windows ICS.

We have a huge number of posts detailing large numbers of router failures.---often within a month or two.

So far I have not seen the first post from the router community explaining WHY ICS fails under high bandwidth or even any cases that it does.--------------------we just have take our word for it as far as I can see thus far.---on this thread and on other threads.

Many people have just two computer networks to share an internet connection---and now the question becomes are they being BRAINWASHED into buying routers? When they could spend less and have more stability by using windows ICS?-----------or alternately is the assertion by JackMDS true---------but its going to take more than take our word for it --we know best.

To a certain extent this pro router bias could be natural---the network guru's here often get their expertise by setting up large lans for corporations---and when you get into a many computer situation with certain computers having greater sharing privlidges than others---or you even get to networks within networks---in such cases routers are the way to go---and better yet---cost is not a considertion for the set up person because someone else pays for the equipment costs------with very expensive routers used out of the cost range of ordinary consumers---and if thats the way the big boys do it-----the implication becomes that the same method applies to the little people also over the ENTIRE RANGE OF LAN SIZE---but when you get to the 2 or three computer network---does that same conventional wisdom still apply when network size is only two or three computers?---or are other methods both more stable and cost efficent when lan size gets small.?
 
ICS just plain sucks and should be avoided at all costs.

It is extremely unstable and unreliable. It is also breaking every good design principle pertaining to networking.

OP - just get a router and all of your troubles will disappear.
 
So far, 4 days of torrents and Online games + Browsing + File sharing... no problems experienced. Will keep monitoring for the next days so i can confirm that ICS sucks.

PS: i doubt it will give any problems since on my previous system, i used this kind of setup (although only 1 Client 1 HOST) for more than a year. It gave me nil problems. Wonder what problems you guys encountered. Care to share for my heads up.
 
Originally posted by: dedejean
So far, 4 days of torrents and Online games + Browsing + File sharing... no problems experienced. Will keep monitoring for the next days so i can confirm that ICS sucks.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Good luck when you do or change anything.

PC guys just assume that rebooting and randomly changing things and putzing are normal. Not so in the networking world.
 
Thank you dedejean for weighing back in---and I do have a question---since I am running ICS also---but am limited to only dialup at present---but given the thus far unsupported opinions that ICS is not stable at high bandwidth ----four days with your high speed setup is hardly proof that ICS is stable at high bandwidth---but you reference another network setup you had for a year that was stable with ICS---but was that also a high speed connection?---and if the answer is yes---then your experience has cast serious doubts on the credability of the statement that ICS is not stable at high bandwidth.

But I am trying to maintain an open mind on this entire ICS sucks question. And thus far---the anti ICS posters have been emotional---not logical---and have offered zero supporting evidence other than they don't like ICS. But I do hope we do have posters who can offer supporting evidence or some seblance of logic so we can get some other logically VALID viewpoints or experiences on either side of the ICS question.

But I somewhat maintain a router can be used with any size of network---but when the network is limited to two or three computers---the question is and remains is ICS a viable option---and on what criteria---cost, stability, or other criteria can the router vs. ICS be compared in an unbiased experiment?
 
i am not sure if it is considered high bandwidth, but the other setup was on 384kbps aDSL subscription share from 1 HOSt running WINXP Pro SP2 to 1 Client running WINXP HOME Sp2. Yep, no problems whatsoever for 11mos.

I REALLY REALLY wanna know what PROBLEMS these guys encountered that led them to generalize ICS sucks even in small setups like mine. What can be the problem switching data for 1 or 2 PCs? Even non 64bit processors like Athlon XP can handle it I am sure.
 
Originally posted by: dedejean
i am not sure if it is considered high bandwidth, but the other setup was on 384kbps aDSL subscription share from 1 HOSt running WINXP Pro SP2 to 1 Client running WINXP HOME Sp2. Yep, no problems whatsoever for 11mos.
Click to expand...

when people say they cant handle high speed, they usually refer to a 5+ mbps connection with close to constant usage...not a slow dsl connection surfing the web.

what is true with this is true with most networking, the more complex something is the more chances something will go wrong. i think the majority of the ics sucks people are going off personal experience and common sense. it doesnt matter if you couldnt get ics to work for 2 seconds or it has been working for over a year. Its a software based work around solution that is less reliable, effecient, and future-proof than a hardware solution.

will it work with your 2 pc's and do what you want it do to? most likely...but again it comes down to preference. I would never run ics to another pc when a more viable solution is avaliable. hell, i'd even use a router if i was just hooking up a single pc to the internet. i prefer doing things right the first time, but thats just me...
 
To jlazzaro,

Again, from a logic standpoint, your post boils down to your assertion that a hardware solution is more reliable than a hardware solution---and that you kneejerk PREFER a hardware solution and therefore its the right thing to do.---------so it still sadly boils down to an opinion and nothing more because you have no comparative data or evidence.

But given the huge number of router failures---you are immediately behind the eight ball on the reliability issue.

But being somewhat a stickler for logic---I still do want to see some comparative data---because I think this is a question of interest to me and others---and mere opinions won't cut it.

I also wonder if some of the bad ICS problems originate from keeping dynamic client addressing in ICS---which is the default---and the following actually happened to me when I set up my first ICS lan---I must have had an intermittent NIC on one computer---or at least I assume it was a NIC---and the immediate symtom was that I would get an occassional pop up message that my cat 5e cable was unplugged---followed by a almost immediate pop up that my cat5e cable was reconnected---during this brief down time---the client address of 192.168.0.x--where x is some number between 2 and 255 would sometimes reset to some other number--breaking ICS---and I would have to then start from scratch--reset up ICS---and it was driving me nuts---until I set up static client addressing per microsoft knowledgebase article kb309642---I still got those occassional pop up of the cable unplugging and reconnecting---but it NEVER again broke the network where I had to re-setup. When the client PC died of old age---I replaced it with another computer and reused the crossover cable--now I never get these cable pop-up messages---proving it was something on the old client computer--- which I assume was the NIC.

If my experience is anything but totally rare with intermittent NIC's---I can sure see some pro-router types kneejerk blaming ICS software for the problem---when it fact it was just a intermittent NIC-- which is hardware.

But the proof in the pudding with any net work is the set it and forget it reliability---and so far I have yet to see any EVIDENCE that ICS is not rock solid.--especially when set up with
static client addressing. I also wonder if some router failures are really due to such intermittent NIC's---and the router gets blamed or overstressed.

But if there is EVIDENCE that ICS is not rock solid in software---I also want to see it---which is more reliable?---a router or ICS for a small network is a question that should be able to be answered logically. One can also say that a router may offer more configeration options in a large network---but if a ICS small network allows the user to do ALL they need to do,
that configerability argument holds no water.
 
Lemon law,

Simply put ICS relies on the windows stack and some manipulation of it. That right there means it is not a viable solution when compared to a device that doesn't have the dynamic pointers and linkage that windows does.

ICS is just too unreliable and flaky to be suggested for a solution. Touch anything with the stack or driver or any other network setting and it is likely to stop working.

one cannot apply PC type of thinking to networking. It just flat out doesn't work that way.
 
To Spidey07,

You are getting closer to logic but still not over any hills---you are saying that ICS depends on dynamic pointers, linkages, stacks, and drivers.

But for most of us who use windows XP-----the entire OS depends on exactly the same things---and windows XP is a pretty stable OS---maybe Linux is better---but Linux basically depends on the same things also.

Then you go on to say touch stacks or drivers or other settings and it quits---without specifying or explaining what would touch the stacks or drivers---or why you would need to make changes to something working well.

But its also quite evident routers have certain unreliabilities---in hardware and in software.---and maybe all a router might do is add to the OS as yet another thing that might fail.

So for the person who has a network small enough where both ICS or routers are practical choices---the questions remains---which is more reliable?---or for that matter--why should just ICS be stable at slow speeds and not stable at higher speeds?---might it be that increased bandwidth degrades routers and ICS equally?---overall some interesting questions--nor do I want to come off as a proponent of ICS---if it can be logically or experimentally shown that ICS is inferior---we all want to see the proof---but it has to be a proof that stands up and not an opinion---which seems to be the best the pro-router crowd has come up with so far---opinions based on nothing quantified or meeting any logical tests.

To really answer the question scientifically---one might have to compare such network choices side by side---with the same bandwidth in over time. Maybe someone has done such experiments---but the best evidence so far is the experience of dedejean.
 
I think its not on the bandwidth, but instead its the switching thats making ICS suck... Come to think of it, even if the bandwidth is 40mbps and there are only 2 PCs sharing that... i think ICS can still handle it, dont you? But 4 or more PCs is a different scenario.

Software is not so bad compared to hardware solutions, as long as the performance hit is not that significant, then everything should be fine... and its even more flexible since they can do upgrades. Moreover, since ICS in Winxp is an old-aged feature... im sure they already have perfected it... AND COnSUMERS understood it is only used for SMALL networks.

So do you still think hardware router is more "feasible" (both functionality and budget) than ICS on a small network as mine?

here's the deal:
Solution__________Functionality________Cost
ICS_________________Ok____________$.11/m
Router_______________Ok_____________$20

Since i am using ICS without problems... i still think router will work the same. Performance hit on my cpu is not noticeable. Hence i saved a couple of bucks but still get the same result.
 
To dedejean,

Normally an ICS setup is only two computers, its kinda unusual to have three---but eventually you run out of spaces to put network interface cards on the host computer---or at least that what strikes me as one reason for a router---ICS simple does not seem to me as something infinately expandable to large numbers of computers on a lan.

For some smuck like me still stuck on dial up---ICS has another advantage for me---I can use the dial up modem on an expansion slot on the host computers mobo---and with the router I would have to get a standalone non-win-modem that plugs into the router---which is hard to find cheap---and for some reason the el-cheapie win-modem on the host computer mobo is the fastest modem I have ever had---I get close to 46 K actual throughput most of the time with fairly crappy phone lines. So my total ICS network cost has been basically the cost of a crossover cable---since on mobo NIC's came with each computer---and even the cost of the crossover cable cancels out for me---because I would need a equally expensive
patch cable with a router to go the router route.--------and a much higher expense for me if I go wireless.---but when and if I get some flavor of broadband---I will either have to get another NIC for the host computer and plug the broadband modem into said NIC----or I can get a router---plug the broadband modem into the wan port of the router---and then figure out how to convert my existing crossover cable back into a patch cable---replace or modify.

But in your case dedejean---you save only $9.00---the difference in cost between a NIC and a el-cheapie router in your more unusual three compter ICS set up. And not many people have two on mobo NIC's like you have on the host computer---and would have to add two NIC's into expansion slots to duplicate your set-up for a three computer ICS network.

So at least in my mind its not a question of the network working----either should work in theory---its more a question of which will KEEP WORKING----the pro router community issues dire warnings your ICS setup will fail because the software will fail under load---and I wonder if its more probable that the el-cheapie router will fail?---and you too will be replacing $20.00 routers every few months if you modify your set-up to a router.

But I see the value of this thread being exactly in that what KEEP WORKING longer question------For many people in the class of having just two or three computers---that question of ICS vs. a router becomes somewhat vital--regardless if they are just now contemplating setting up a lan or having to replace a router.

How do you test that contention logically is the other way to state it?-------sadly I have to conclude--so far--that no logical tests have been posted---so that question has not been answered.---but in the case of just dial up on a two computer lan---I maintain ICS was a no-brainer for me on dialup---for cost reasons alone---and no reported stability problems.
But I will face that same KEEP WORKING question when and if some flavor of broadband becomes available

I will also point out another thing---even if ICS crashes---I can re-set up my ICS lan in five minutes or so and for no dollars in cost---if a router fails--its probably at least $20.00
and more time to reset up.---plus the downtime waiting to get another router.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top