second nic?

[inon^]

I have a well functioning LAN and I share dial-up connection over three puters (98, NT and Linux). Two days from now I will get cable modem and wondering if I need to have a second NIC or just plug the cable modem into the hub's uplink port? Does this effect performance/speed?

All help is appreciated.

[Confused]

Depending upon the policies of your cable provider, you might be better of getting a router such as a Linksys 4 port or a SMC Barricade 4 port. Router would hold IP address provided by cable co. and PC's would be set up to obtain IP address automatically. Then again your cable co. may give you 3 IP addresses without an aditional charge. Router also gives some firewall protection that a hub won't and printer sharing is easy if you get one with a printer port like my SMC.
Chas

[inon^]

Well....I have 3 NICs sitting and collecting dust. All three are LinkSys LNE100T (something like that). So, I am assuming installing a second NIC in the host computer would serve my purpose. The router idea is 'a bit pricy' for me. I am using AnalogX proxy and ZoneAlarm firewall.

This setup should give me the right punch out of my cable. Please post all your comments/suggestions. Thanks.

[Xayd]

Add the second nic to your Linux box and it could be a router for all three. Security and flawless connection sharing to boot .

Read the docs on IP Masquerading, it's rather simple once you get the hang of how it works, assuming you have basic knowledge of TCP/IP.

[inon^]

I know what you mean. The Linux box is a resurrected P120, had to install ATA66 controller card to override BIOS limits. It's slow and just a file server with Samba (WINS Server)running on it.

So, in summary I better have a second NIC. Right?

[Xayd]

Yeah, one nic for the connection to the outside, and one for the lan going to your hub. Speed isn't a big issue unless it's doing a ton of processing work on other tasks.

My Linux router is a 486 with, I wanna say 24 megs of RAM. Works great .

[inon^]

Your posting is indeed tempting (to use my Linux box). You mean, 486 as a server and directly hooked to cable modem (and serving other puters on the LAN) is "NOT SLOW?"

If you're saying what I understood, then I will add second nic in my Linux box and go from there

Please let me know.

[Xayd]

Not slow at all. Standalone routers generally only have 50-120mhz processors if I remember correctly, it's not terribly CPU intensive work .

[inon^]

I remember my Linux box has ISA slots and the current NIC is a ISA card. If one PCI slot is available, then I am on my way to IP Masquerading. Else, got to put this additional NIC in my NT machine and go from there. I will post what happened.

Thanks for the info and suggestions.

Happy New Year.

[glc]

No reason why you can't run more than one ISA nic as long as they are on different IRQ and I/O addresses. If you have an IRQ crunch, you can disable the com ports and the printer port if you aren't using them.

[inon^]

Oh...I can run more than one ISA NIC. That's not an issue.

The issue is, I don't have any more ISA NICs and have only (3) PCI NICs. If my Linux box has one PCI slot empty, then I am good to go.

[Xayd]

Even at that, you could probably turn up an old ISA nic for under 10 bucks somewhere .

Look around for a 3COM 509 if ya need one, they work great, I run two in my router.

[inon^]

Finally added a second NIC to my NT machine (leaving Linux running Samba) and installed AnalogX proxy, ZoneAlarm FW and VisualZone.

This puppy is screaming (with a few hicks). As soon as I find little time, I will transfer this to Linux box and masquerade the IP.

Thanks for all your suggestions.