Would this be possible?

Would this be possible?

Post by Timote » Fri, 03 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Would it be possible to put together a $100 device that looks and works like
a hub however it has allready wired into it NAT service so in a sence this
device would connect directly to your cable modem then attach the client
computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

What do you all think?

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Robert Rais » Fri, 03 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> Would it be possible to put together a $100 device that looks and works like
> a hub however it has allready wired into it NAT service so in a sence this
> device would connect directly to your cable modem then attach the client
> computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
> performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

> What do you all think?

Sure.  But you're talking about a processor with firmware support for both
TCP/IP and IP-masquerading.  Not an easy task for the home hobbyist.  Could it
be done for $100?  Probably, in quantity.
--
Rob Raisch, Online Technology Evangelist <http://www.raisch.com/>
"O brave new world, That has such people in't!"

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Barry Margoli » Fri, 03 Jul 1998 04:00:00





>> Would it be possible to put together a $100 device that looks and works like
>> a hub however it has allready wired into it NAT service so in a sence this
>> device would connect directly to your cable modem then attach the client
>> computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
>> performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

>> What do you all think?

>Sure.  But you're talking about a processor with firmware support for both
>TCP/IP and IP-masquerading.  Not an easy task for the home hobbyist.  Could it
>be done for $100?  Probably, in quantity.

Probably the way to go would be to find a vendor interested in bundling the
feature into the cable modem itself.  That would be one way to get the
volume high enough to bring the cost down.  Also, the cable modem probably
already has an IP stack in it (most of them are network manageable,
probably using SNMP), so you wouldn't have to add this.

But $100 would be about a 20-25% increase in price for the cable modems, so
it might be a hard sell.  MediaOne Express has been saying that they'll be
offering connections for multiple systems Real Soon Now for a while, and
I think it's just a firmware upgrade that enables it on the modems.

--

GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Benjamin Hendrick » Fri, 03 Jul 1998 04:00:00


I found an Ethernet router with NAT made by a company called Cayman Systems
(Massachusetts). Does what you are asking for, but $985 each. Ouch!

I expect if DLink or SMC got it in their head that this was a good idea, we
might see them for $150 or so.

My NAT solution has been text-only Linux (no X-windows) running on an old
486 PC. Telnet in to configure - no monitor, mouse, or keyboard attached.
Granted, it's only routing a 56K modem at this point, but it works!

regards

Benjamin Hendricks, MCSE


>Would it be possible to put together a $100 device that looks and works
like
>a hub however it has allready wired into it NAT service so in a sence this
>device would connect directly to your cable modem then attach the client
>computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
>performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

>What do you all think?

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Steve Kostec » Fri, 03 Jul 1998 04:00:00





[snip]
>> computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
>> performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

[snip]
> Sure.  But you're talking about a processor with firmware support for both
> TCP/IP and IP-masquerading.  Not an easy task for the home hobbyist.

Ummm, You're saying that NAT on Windows (9*|NT) has an impact on system
performance?
--
 ____
||k || Steve Kostecke                |  Debian GNU/Linux

|/__\| http://kostecke.home.ml.org   |  http://www.debian.org
 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Barry Margoli » Fri, 03 Jul 1998 04:00:00







>[snip]
>>> computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
>>> performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

>[snip]
>> Sure.  But you're talking about a processor with firmware support for both
>> TCP/IP and IP-masquerading.  Not an easy task for the home hobbyist.

>Ummm, You're saying that NAT on Windows (9*|NT) has an impact on system
>performance?

How can it not?  The NAT software uses CPU time that would otherwise be
available for running applications.  Every task you give a machine has an
impact on performance of other tasks.

--

GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Johannes Ullric » Sat, 04 Jul 1998 04:00:00


I think Ascend is selling something like that. But I think it is more like
$500 and it would go between cable modem and hub. I remember seeing some
Ascend stuff like that for ISDN. Even got the firewall build in and was
hardly any larger than a 5 port hub. How about Cisco? They should make such
a thing but if it comes from Cisco you won't get it for less than $1000.

--

Check the unofficial NYCAP RR user FAQ: http://johannes.ml.org/nycaptech.htm


>Would it be possible to put together a $100 device that looks and works
like
>a hub however it has allready wired into it NAT service so in a sence this
>device would connect directly to your cable modem then attach the client
>computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
>performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.

>What do you all think?

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by William P.N. Smit » Sun, 05 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> it might be a hard sell.  MediaOne Express has been saying that they'll be
> offering connections for multiple systems Real Soon Now for a while, and
> I think it's just a firmware upgrade that enables it on the modems.

Actually it's already in the modems, they just have to get up to speed
in the technical side to make it work in their infrastructure, and on
the marketing side to figure out how to price it.

--

#define NII Information Supercollider

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Steve Kostec » Sun, 05 Jul 1998 04:00:00







[snip]
>>Ummm, You're saying that NAT on Windows (9*|NT) has an impact on system
>>performance?

> How can it not?  The NAT software uses CPU time that would otherwise be
> available for running applications.  Every task you give a machine has an
> impact on performance of other tasks.

My question should have asked if NAT had a substantial impact on system
performance. Perhaps it does on a Windows box.

FWIW: IP-Masquerading (NAT) puts no perceptible load on my Linux box.
--
 ____
||k || Steve Kostecke                |  Debian GNU/Linux

|/__\| http://kostecke.home.ml.org   |  http://www.debian.org

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by cfb » Mon, 06 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> Would it be possible to put together a $100 device that looks and works like
> a hub however it has allready wired into it NAT service so in a sence this
> device would connect directly to your cable modem then attach the client
> computers to it.  This would take out the need for a computer to take a
> performance hit of doing the NAT conversions.
> What do you all think?

Actually, I bet there's going to be a very big market for this type of
device as the number of cable modems increases and PCs become as common
as the TV set (2 in every house?)...

I use a box called a UGate made by UMax.  This box connects to a
modem/ISDN TA via the rs232 port and does NAT to a 10bT port.  It works
pretty well, but the NAT implementation is pretty slim. Personally, I'd
like to see some static mapping put into the microcode, but that's just
me.

Anyway, this device doesn't really do you a whole lot of good because
the gateway interface is ppp over rs232 serial.  I haven't popped the
box open yet, but I bet 5 to 1 that there's a very popular
micro-controller at the heart of this device with a UART on one side and
a ethernet controller on the other.  I don't want to be the one who
reverse engineers the micro-code or the guy who hacks out the UART.
There might be some performance issues with using a low end
micro-controller for ethernet to ethernet NAT that are mitigated by
stepping down to the UART's max transmission rate to 240Kbps.

To address the obvious choice of just using 2 computers... My girlfriend
has a hard enough time figuring out that I've disconnected her monitor
and that she needs to re-connect it to her computer.  Giving her
instructions on how to boot my computer (dual boot linux/95) and run
whatever gateway program is on par with rocket science from her
prospective.  I'd much rather have a black box that sits next the cable
modem ready to serve 24/7.

Maybe there's someone out there knows someone at UMax?  There's enough
NAT code floating around that someone could possibly use a stripped down
version of linux on a custom 486 with two OEM ethernet controllers
(check out www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ and
www.redhat.com/~ed/linux-7110.html and
www.arm.uk.linux.org/~rmk/armlinux.html to see just how embedded Linux
as gotten recently... Linux on a Psion Series 5... ummm... WinCE blows
enough to make this REALLY attractive).  Maybe it could be built for
less than $150.  The only gotcha' would be that the source for the
device would need to be GPLed.  No biggie, as long as the hardware sells
like hot cakes.

There's another product application that I've been tossing about... This
type of device could double as a personal firewall.  I was thinking
about having a box with 2 ethernet and 2 serial ports.  It could be
configured for ethernet to ethernet, ethernet to serial or serial to
serial connections.  You could use it at home via your analogue or cable
modem.  You could use it at work.  It could do nifty things like force
packet reassembly ignore broadcast DoS attacks, and let YOU implement
your own security policy rather than be at the mercy of some braindead
Microsoft Certified Enjuinerr.  Maybe throw in some encryption and
authentication functionality was well (can you say "Java Ring" or
"biometrics"?).

fehh.. whatever... another idea to pile on the technology s*heap...

 
 
 

Would this be possible?

Post by Barry Margoli » Tue, 07 Jul 1998 04:00:00




>My question should have asked if NAT had a substantial impact on system
>performance. Perhaps it does on a Windows box.

>FWIW: IP-Masquerading (NAT) puts no perceptible load on my Linux box.

I guess it depends on what you consider substantial and perceptible.  It
also depends on how many systems on the local network are trying to access
the Internet simultaneously through the NAT system.

If a dedicated NAT box were cheap enough, it might make sense for some
people to use it just to get that little bit of performance back.  And the
ease of use of a plug-and-play box would appeal to others.

--

GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.

 
 
 

1. Is this possible or am I just dreaming ?

Hi,
I am getting ready to start the 3rd semester of the Cisco Networking Academy
in a few weeks, and not sure if they will cover this or not.
I have successfully hooked a modem up to a 2501 router and am able to dial
in to the AUX port. My question is this:
1. Can I use the router to dial out to my ISP (normal ISP, no cable or dsl)
through the AUX line and be able to connect to it through the ethernet0 port
?
I have 2 routers hooked back-to-back (just for info). Both are hooked to a
hub, which also contains 3 computers.
2. I would like to be able to Dial out w/ router 1, be able to use that
connection with the ethernet0 port, at the same time, use the other router
to filter net addresses for my son. (gotta be careful nowdays).
3. Is this possible, if so, can someone point me to a link or give me some
sample configs.

Thanks,
Bill.....

2. Numberkeys get messed up in PINE

3. named and dns - is this possible, or am I on crack?

4. including messages across mails

5. Am I hacked? Am I at least safe?

6. comp.sys.sinclair FAQ Pointer

7. I am a dumbass (No, I am)

8. Value cannot be null. Parameter name: dataSet

9. is it possible ? - possible.jpg (0/1)

10. is it possible ? - possible.jpg (1/1)

11. Am I stupid or am I stupid. PPP. ALMOST!!!

12. I am stumped with ACS and AD comms

13. Trying to configure NAT/PAT after reading several articles - WHAT am I missing?