|
windows
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Getting Windows XP To Act as NAT ServerWhat is the easiest way to get Windows XP Professional to act as an NAT
server for only one of its attached host adapters? -- Will On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:24:28 -0800, "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote: Will,>What is the easiest way to get Windows XP Professional to act as an NAT >server for only one of its attached host adapters? ICS is a Windows XP NAT ROUTER solution - not NAT server. You can configure ICS on any one of multiple LAN connections. <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html -- Cheers, Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking] http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/ Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience. My email is AT DOT actual address pchuck mvps org. "Chuck" <n***@example.net> wrote in message <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html>news:qq47l2ddu4v3p3slub8dvavseh6nmddmic@4ax.com... > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:24:28 -0800, "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote: > > >What is the easiest way to get Windows XP Professional to act as an NAT > >server for only one of its attached host adapters? > > Will, > > ICS is a Windows XP NAT ROUTER solution - not NAT server. You can configure ICS > on any one of multiple LAN connections. > ICS isn't all that secure I guess? What's the cheapest commercial NAT solution that would work on a Windows XP host? Most commercial solutions are going to be full blown stateless firewalls that require a server OS for the install, not to mention fairly serious dollars..... I need the NAT on Windows XP just as a performance tweak on a VMWare virtual machine used for a non production system. The VMWare built-in NAT functions work but have terrible performance problems. I can certainly try ICS, but just hate to lower security on the XP host. -- Will In article <9L6dnQehrsW6Xc7YnZ2dnUVZ_qidn***@giganews.com>, "Will"
<westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >"Chuck" <n***@example.net> wrote in message I respectfully disagree with Chuck's comments about ICS being insecure>news:qq47l2ddu4v3p3slub8dvavseh6nmddmic@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:24:28 -0800, "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> >wrote: >> >> >What is the easiest way to get Windows XP Professional to act as an NAT >> >server for only one of its attached host adapters? >> >> Will, >> >> ICS is a Windows XP NAT ROUTER solution - not NAT server. You can >configure ICS >> on any one of multiple LAN connections. >> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html > >ICS isn't all that secure I guess? What's the cheapest commercial NAT >solution that would work on a Windows XP host? Most commercial solutions >are going to be full blown stateless firewalls that require a server OS for >the install, not to mention fairly serious dollars..... > >I need the NAT on Windows XP just as a performance tweak on a VMWare virtual >machine used for a non production system. The VMWare built-in NAT >functions work but have terrible performance problems. I can certainly >try ICS, but just hate to lower security on the XP host. or straining the resources of the server. In my opinion, ICS, with the Windows Firewall enabled on the host, is fine, because: 1. The attack that he cites that can kill the Windows firewall has to come from a computer on the LAN. The attack can't come from the Internet. See this site for details: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-new-windows-attack-can-kill.html 2. In my opinion, ICS puts a negligible load on the host computer. A typical home broadband router has a much slower processor and much less memory than an XP ICS host computer. For example, my SMC Barricade router has a 40 MHz CPU and less than 1 MB of memory. A computer meeting the absolute minimum requirements or Windows XP is 10 times faster and has 128 times as much memory. A more recent computer is at least 50 times faster than that router and has at least 256 times as much memory. -- Best Wishes, Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking) Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups. Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
Show quote
Hide quote
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:35:15 -0800, "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote: Will,>"Chuck" <n***@example.net> wrote in message >news:qq47l2ddu4v3p3slub8dvavseh6nmddmic@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:24:28 -0800, "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> >wrote: >> >> >What is the easiest way to get Windows XP Professional to act as an NAT >> >server for only one of its attached host adapters? >> >> Will, >> >> ICS is a Windows XP NAT ROUTER solution - not NAT server. You can >configure ICS >> on any one of multiple LAN connections. >> ><http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html> >> http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/ics-is-ok-but-you-can-do-better.html > >ICS isn't all that secure I guess? What's the cheapest commercial NAT >solution that would work on a Windows XP host? Most commercial solutions >are going to be full blown stateless firewalls that require a server OS for >the install, not to mention fairly serious dollars..... > >I need the NAT on Windows XP just as a performance tweak on a VMWare virtual >machine used for a non production system. The VMWare built-in NAT >functions work but have terrible performance problems. I can certainly >try ICS, but just hate to lower security on the XP host. The disadvantages of ICS are a combination of issues. You read the list I suspect, and I know Steve did. All of them are not that earth shattering, and if a NAT router was expensive, ICS would be well worth it. As it was 5 years ago. When you see decent NAT routers available for as little as $10 after rebate, why gamble? And yes, Steve, the currently known exploit uses a hostile computer on the LAN as the attack medium. But that's why we have WF in the first place - to protect each computer from the other. If you recognise that need, you must recognise the need to prevent that protection from being tampered with. Use one computer for doing the web browsing, and another for sharing the service, and sharing it in safety. Don't mix the two. Certainly not to save as little as less than one months web service. -- Cheers, Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking] http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/ Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience. My email is AT DOT actual address pchuck mvps org. "Chuck" <n***@example.net> wrote in message In case you have not use the VMWare Server virtual machine software before,news:1r38l25aghin8efjtaluo888qq1tldvltd@4ax.com... > When you see decent NAT routers available for as little as $10 after rebate, why > gamble? it creates "virtual network adapters" between the host computer and the virtual machines. In this model, the host creates a virtual switch fabric corresponding to each of the networks for the virtual adapters. There is no place in this model to plug in an NAT hardware router. The NAT capability must exist in some form on the host computer or the virtual machines do not get NAT. > And yes, Steve, the currently known exploit uses a hostile computer on the And I would probably go farther than that and point out that the risk isLAN > as the attack medium. But that's why we have WF in the first place - to protect > each computer from the other. If you recognise that need, you must recognise > the need to prevent that protection from being tampered with. seldom from direct attack from the outside. These days most compromises happen when users visit web sites and install trojans as active/x controls. Once a host is taken over from inside, the inside host becomes the mechanism for attacking other hosts on the internal network. > Use one computer for doing the web browsing, and another for sharing the If I could fix the performance problem I am trying to fix, I would probably> service, and sharing it in safety. Don't mix the two. Certainly not to save as > little as less than one months web service. start doing all of my web browsing inside of virtual machines. They can have their state checkpointed and easily recovered to a known point in time after you begin to suspect a problem inside the VM. -- Will
Yet another "network cable unplugged" issue (w/DSL)
Unable to connect to my wireless laptop Read only access error after newly saving files Promted for username & password when accessing network folder Cannot Detect Eithernet dns lookup problem Invisible Computer Sharing a printer Can I list the open files I have to a network share? Win has an mtu size, so does router, which matters? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||