rec.autos.simulators

by **Alison Hin** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 00:16:29

Ok, I've got another question for you guys!

I've been having trouble with my internet connection (cable modem
through AT&T) lately. A few weeks ago the old NetGear/LANCity cable
modem died, so I bought a shiny new Toshiba PCX2200.

That improved things, but I was still getting spiking latency and sync
problems when racing GPL online - even when racing on my own server!
The other day a driver in the UK joined a race on my server, and we had
a great duel. Afterwards, discussing it in the chat, he said he'd been
having latency problems with my server that he doesn't have with other
servers in the US.

I suspected Sygate might be the problem, since a lot of people have said
that it tends to have relatively poor performance and reliability.

BTW, here's my configuration:

The Win98 computer is mainly a router, although it also does occasional
duty as an FTP server and a print server.

I decided to replace Sygate with Winroute. But before doing this, I ran
a UOTrace polling test to a server in the UK. After shutting down
Sygate and installing Winroute, I ran another UOTrace to the same
server.

The difference was remarkable! The test through Sygate had much higher
average and peak latencies on every router but one than the Winroute
test did (that router was probably overloaded at the time). Sygate also
had many lost packets, while Winroute didn't lose any during its test!

So I'm convinced that Sygate is a poor choice for a router, and Winroute
is a much better choice. Also, Winroute is incredibly easy to set up
for GPL, especially compared to Sygate's arcane port mapping method.

The only disadvantage I've found with Winroute so far is that it won't
route traffic from my LAN back through mapped ports. This means I can't
join races hosted on my own GPL server through WinVROC; I have to join
them directly across the LAN. Sygate allowed me to join my own server
through WinVROC. It's a small annoyance, but I can live with it.

However, I'm faced with a bit of a dilemma. Compared to a hardware
router, Winroute Lite is quite expensive:

3 client license (including the router) - $80
10 client license - $200

There is also Winroute Pro (adds a firewall), which costs $150 for 5
clients.

Winroute says it takes 15 minutes after any activity for a client to
time out and free up one of the user slots. Also the router - the
machine running Winroute - is always using one of the user slots, so
with the 3 user license effectively you've got only two more slots.

I've got eight machines on my LAN. Granted, I don't use them all at
once! But I can easily envision situations where I'm using more than
three at a time, especially since the router always accounts for one
slot.

If anyone is racing on my GPL server, that leaves me with Internet
access from only one machine. If I'm running WinVROC or GPL on my
racing computer and someone mentions a new GPL track or whatever in the
chat, I wouldn't be able to check out its Web page or GPL Track Database
from my other computer. If my housemate is online, I'm screwed!

So the $80 3-user license is out. That leaves the $150 5-user Pro
license as a minimum. But Best Buy has tons of cable/DSL hardware
routers for $30 to $150. These are made by Belkin, D-Link, Linksys,
Siemens, even Microsoft.

How can Winroute stay in business charging more for a software product
than these companies are charging for hardware that does the same thing?
Is Winroute that much better than the hardware routers? Is it better at
all?

Does anyone have any experience with any of these hardware routers?
Which work well with GPL and other racing sims, and which do not?

Here are the features I'm aware of that I need:

- Allow simultaneous Internet access by at least five client computers
on the LAN, and non-simultaneous access by all eight.

- Allow very flexible port mapping, especially for GPL servers and F1
2002, which has a completely different port scheme requiring allocation
of thousands of ports with no trigger port. Also allow me to map
incoming FTP and Web server ports to a machine on my LAN while allowing
outgoing traffic to FTP and Web servers on the internet.

- DNS server forwarding.

- DHCP server (nice but not essential).

I've got 27 days left on my 30 day Winroute free trial period. Any
suggestions are welcome!

Alison

Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Goy Larse** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 00:28:30

> Ok, I've got another question for you guys!

<snip>

Well, here at the shop I'm using a Win2k PC and Internet Connection
sharing right now, which gives me some of the same problems as you are
having, within a short while I'll be replacing it with a SMC Barricade
Router though, similar to the one I'm using at home

I'm no networking Guru but a friend of mine swears to these and it seems
to be getting favorable reviews at sites like this
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/, I'm running the 7004 ABR, I would think
it's comparable to Linksys/Netgear/etc

And I've been wondering the same thing you are really, how come people
spend money on a more expensive software solution when there's a
perfectly viable hardware solution available for *less* money...

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--

by **MadDAW** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 03:07:21

I use just a simple $100 Linksys 4 port cable/DSL router with no problems. I
don't use VROC since 'I'm not big on GPL, but anything else I have thrown at
it seems to do just fine. I did need a firmware update to get file transfer
to work with MSN messenger, but I would think any new ones would come with
that all ready since I have had mine for about 18 months now.

Comparing my layout to yours the main difference I can see is the hub. My
*** computers all connect directly to the Linksys which would basically
skip the step thru the hub in your layout. Now I'm no network guru, but a
switched hub is better than a hub, so maybe the Wingate handles a hub better
than Sysgate.

Here is my setup.

RCA Cable modem
|
|
Linksys Router
| | |
| | |
File/Print Server ----------| | |---------- Game
Server
|
|
Race Box

Its nothing fancy but it works pretty good, and eliminates one hop compared
to your setup. I'm not 100% sure but I think Linksys has an 8 port version
of what I have so you should be all set. Even if you were to get a four
port the router is able to handle up to 256 computers IIRC, by attaching a
hub to the first port. That would still leave you with port 2/3/4 to hook up
the "important" computers to, and hook the FTP server and others up thru the
hub.

MadDAWG

by **Milhous** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 03:19:24

My Linksys router has worked quite well on my LAN for quite some time
now...I wish I had bought the 4-port version instead of the single-port, but
oh well, life goes on. (My single-port has a VERY strange tendency to lock
up whenever it's plugged directly into a switch. If I plug it into a hub
and then into as many switches as I want, it doesn't care, just so long as
it's not plugged directly into a switch. I doubt the 4-port router has this
problem, or most single-port routers, as the guys at Linksys were all more
or less stumped by it.)

Regarding number of clients...I think it supports 253 clients. More than
enough. :) I've had the better part of 30 on it at a time (LAN parties) and
no trouble at all, aside from the logistics of cutting a cable modem that
thin. ;)

Port mapping on it is a dream. You just browse to it (all config is done
via a browser), go to the Port Forwarding tab, specify a port or range of
ports, and an IP address to forward those ports incoming to. You can still
use the ports outgoing from any computer, but all incoming traffic to those
ports will go to the specified IP address.

DNS server forwarding - not 100% sure what you mean by this...if you mean
you want all machines on the LAN to use your ISP's DNS servers, no problem.
I think pretty much every router does this.

DHCP server - I'm 99% sure every router on the market does this.

FWIW, my Linksys is the BEFSR11. The 4-port-switch version is the BEFSR41.
Mine is at least two years old, though, so they probably have a newer model
or two out.

Milhouse

by **Alison Hin** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 04:06:42

Goy-

Thanks for this info! The Small Net site has a lot of really good
information on it.

However, the Small Net review says that the SMC Barricade does not have
static range port mapping (although this is promised in a future
firmware upgrade).

As I understand it, static range port mapping is essential in order to
host GPL races behind the router. The only other option is to place the
GPL server in a DMZ, which completely exposes it to the Internet - and
the Barricade seems to have a performance problem with its DMZ
implementation.

The Barricade also lacks server loopback, which is the name of the
feature that allows you to join races hosted on your own server through
VROC.

The SMC Barricade Plus used to have static range port mapping, but this
was deleted in the most recent firmware update for some unfathomable
reason. It also costs more ($75 vs $40) and also lacks server loopback,
although a recent firmware update adds this feature to single-port
servers.

<sigh>

I'll keep looking.

Alison

>> Ok, I've got another question for you guys!
><snip>

>Well, here at the shop I'm using a Win2k PC and Internet Connection
>sharing right now, which gives me some of the same problems as you are
>having, within a short while I'll be replacing it with a SMC Barricade
>Router though, similar to the one I'm using at home

>I'm no networking Guru but a friend of mine swears to these and it seems
>to be getting favorable reviews at sites like this
>http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/, I'm running the 7004 ABR, I would think
>it's comparable to Linksys/Netgear/etc

>And I've been wondering the same thing you are really, how come people
>spend money on a more expensive software solution when there's a
>perfectly viable hardware solution available for *less* money...

>Beers and cheers
>(uncle) Goy

>"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

>"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
>--Groucho Marx--

Alison

Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

by **MadDAW** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 04:16:55

I think the Linksys will do what you want. Again I don't use VROC, but I can
put up a server on Sierra on my server box, and join it thru Sierra from my
race box. We were doing this so our races would count for rankings.

MadDAWG

by **Schum** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 04:34:30

Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router prices to
Winroute's price is a little unfair to begin with TBH. Its like comparing
apples to oranges I'm afraid.

When you compare winroute's enterprise level support, to an enterprise level
router (same features) you quickly see that you save over $1,000.00 by
choosing winroute, and as a bonus... you get scaleability that the hardware
routers often lack without a complete replacement.

In a nutshell... from what you have told me about your network, what you
want to do with it, how many boxes you want connect simultaneously, price
range, etc. I'd have to say to remove a router solution from the equation
entirely. There simply isn't a hardware solution out there for you I'm
afraid. I'll tell you why:

1) The fundamental problem with *home-level* routers is their inherit lack
of onboard memory. It is this lack of memory that is the cause of all the
feature swapping, and lack of overall features thereof. There simply isn't
enough onboard memory to do everything you want.

Lets take a LinkSys router as an example. If all you want to do is have 8
machines surf the Internet at the same time... a linksys router is a good
choice for you. However, you want to host servers, and spread the tasks
(ports) amongst a variety of LAN computers.

Problem #1: You got 12 port range slots to work with. Thaz IT. Once you
specify those 12 port mappings... you reach the limit that router will do.
So... basically you get 1.25 port mappings per box (based on 8 LAN
machines). If you want to hosty F12002 games... this is simply not going to
be enough.

Whereas with winroute (which I have been using and preaching for YEARS) you
are not limited, and indeed the port mapping function is ultra slick. If the
gateway machine is bogging down a bit because of all the winroute traffic
(it'd have to be a 486DX with 16 MB of RAM to really bog down over 8
machines running full tilt 24/7) you simply upgrade the computer (put in a
higher CPU and some more RAM). voila. Infinitely scaleable, very stable,
does EVERYTHING you want it to do (even loopbacks... but it doesn't use a
loop back mechanism... it relies on the NAT to recognize your public IP as
being local... so it kinda loopbacks without leaving the LAN).

Basically... from what you have explained... winroute is your solution. If
you need a hand I can help you out getting sorted. Also... I just ran a
dedicated server in GPL last night on my gateway machine... and played
through the public IP address on my LAN gamebox via VROC. No problemo at
all. Just make sure "alternate IP lookup" is set on the gateway machine, or
the dedicated server you want to run. Then map the ports if the server is
not your gateway machine as need. Simply change the ports used on the
playing machines accordingly and map them in winroute. Voila... Bob's your
uncle...

Cheers,
Schumi

> Ok, I've got another question for you guys!

> I've been having trouble with my internet connection (cable modem
> through AT&T) lately. A few weeks ago the old NetGear/LANCity cable
> modem died, so I bought a shiny new Toshiba PCX2200.

> That improved things, but I was still getting spiking latency and sync
> problems when racing GPL online - even when racing on my own server!
> The other day a driver in the UK joined a race on my server, and we had
> a great duel. Afterwards, discussing it in the chat, he said he'd been
> having latency problems with my server that he doesn't have with other
> servers in the US.

> I suspected Sygate might be the problem, since a lot of people have said
> that it tends to have relatively poor performance and reliability.

> BTW, here's my configuration:

> The Win98 computer is mainly a router, although it also does occasional
> duty as an FTP server and a print server.

> I decided to replace Sygate with Winroute. But before doing this, I ran
> a UOTrace polling test to a server in the UK. After shutting down
> Sygate and installing Winroute, I ran another UOTrace to the same
> server.

> The difference was remarkable! The test through Sygate had much higher
> average and peak latencies on every router but one than the Winroute
> test did (that router was probably overloaded at the time). Sygate also
> had many lost packets, while Winroute didn't lose any during its test!

> So I'm convinced that Sygate is a poor choice for a router, and Winroute
> is a much better choice. Also, Winroute is incredibly easy to set up
> for GPL, especially compared to Sygate's arcane port mapping method.

> The only disadvantage I've found with Winroute so far is that it won't
> route traffic from my LAN back through mapped ports. This means I can't
> join races hosted on my own GPL server through WinVROC; I have to join
> them directly across the LAN. Sygate allowed me to join my own server
> through WinVROC. It's a small annoyance, but I can live with it.

> However, I'm faced with a bit of a dilemma. Compared to a hardware
> router, Winroute Lite is quite expensive:

> 3 client license (including the router) - $80
> 10 client license - $200

> There is also Winroute Pro (adds a firewall), which costs $150 for 5
> clients.

> Winroute says it takes 15 minutes after any activity for a client to
> time out and free up one of the user slots. Also the router - the
> machine running Winroute - is always using one of the user slots, so
> with the 3 user license effectively you've got only two more slots.

> I've got eight machines on my LAN. Granted, I don't use them all at
> once! But I can easily envision situations where I'm using more than
> three at a time, especially since the router always accounts for one
> slot.

> If anyone is racing on my GPL server, that leaves me with Internet
> access from only one machine. If I'm running WinVROC or GPL on my
> racing computer and someone mentions a new GPL track or whatever in the
> chat, I wouldn't be able to check out its Web page or GPL Track Database
> from my other computer. If my housemate is online, I'm screwed!

> So the $80 3-user license is out. That leaves the $150 5-user Pro
> license as a minimum. But Best Buy has tons of cable/DSL hardware
> routers for $30 to $150. These are made by Belkin, D-Link, Linksys,
> Siemens, even Microsoft.

> How can Winroute stay in business charging more for a software product
> than these companies are charging for hardware that does the same thing?
> Is Winroute that much better than the hardware routers? Is it better at
> all?

> Does anyone have any experience with any of these hardware routers?
> Which work well with GPL and other racing sims, and which do not?

> Here are the features I'm aware of that I need:

> - Allow simultaneous Internet access by at least five client computers
> on the LAN, and non-simultaneous access by all eight.

> - Allow very flexible port mapping, especially for GPL servers and F1
> 2002, which has a completely different port scheme requiring allocation
> of thousands of ports with no trigger port. Also allow me to map
> incoming FTP and Web server ports to a machine on my LAN while allowing
> outgoing traffic to FTP and Web servers on the internet.

> - DNS server forwarding.

> - DHCP server (nice but not essential).

> I've got 27 days left on my 30 day Winroute free trial period. Any
> suggestions are welcome!

> Alison

> Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me.
> http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com

by **Goy Larse** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 05:36:37

> Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router prices to
> Winroute's price is a little unfair to begin with TBH. Its like comparing
> apples to oranges I'm afraid. <snip>

I'll take your word for it :-), I'm still going for the hardware router
myself though, the thought of paying for 20-25 licenses is more than
enough to convince me since I (currently) don't need anything that these
small doesn't routers offer (I think), but it's always nice to have a
professional input :-)

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

by **Goy Larse** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 05:37:54

> Goy-

> Thanks for this info! The Small Net site has a lot of really good
> information on it.

Yeah, it's a pretty good site, by my standards anyways, as for the rest,
I guess all I can say is "see Schumi's post" :-)

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

by **Haqsa** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 06:56:36

Schumi - one question: wouldn't she be better off running Winroute
under Windows 2000 or Windows XP? I believe she said she is currently
using Windows 98. Windows 98 IIRC has problems with DHCP timing out and
also is just bad for doing more than one thing at a time. If the
gateway machine is being used for anything other than a router, I would
think she would be better off with an NT based OS.

"Schumi" <ja...@relaygames.com> wrote in message

news:aZzx9.688424$f05.28266132@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...

> Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router prices to
> Winroute's price is a little unfair to begin with TBH. Its like
comparing
> apples to oranges I'm afraid.

> When you compare winroute's enterprise level support, to an enterprise
level
> router (same features) you quickly see that you save over $1,000.00 by
> choosing winroute, and as a bonus... you get scaleability that the
hardware
> routers often lack without a complete replacement.

> In a nutshell... from what you have told me about your network, what
you
> want to do with it, how many boxes you want connect simultaneously,
price
> range, etc. I'd have to say to remove a router solution from the
equation
> entirely. There simply isn't a hardware solution out there for you I'm
> afraid. I'll tell you why:

> 1) The fundamental problem with *home-level* routers is their inherit
lack
> of onboard memory. It is this lack of memory that is the cause of all
the
> feature swapping, and lack of overall features thereof. There simply
isn't
> enough onboard memory to do everything you want.

> Lets take a LinkSys router as an example. If all you want to do is
have 8
> machines surf the Internet at the same time... a linksys router is a
good
> choice for you. However, you want to host servers, and spread the
tasks
> (ports) amongst a variety of LAN computers.

> Problem #1: You got 12 port range slots to work with. Thaz IT. Once
you
> specify those 12 port mappings... you reach the limit that router will
do.
> So... basically you get 1.25 port mappings per box (based on 8 LAN
> machines). If you want to hosty F12002 games... this is simply not
going to
> be enough.

> Whereas with winroute (which I have been using and preaching for
YEARS) you
> are not limited, and indeed the port mapping function is ultra slick.
If the
> gateway machine is bogging down a bit because of all the winroute
traffic
> (it'd have to be a 486DX with 16 MB of RAM to really bog down over 8
> machines running full tilt 24/7) you simply upgrade the computer (put
in a
> higher CPU and some more RAM). voila. Infinitely scaleable, very
stable,
> does EVERYTHING you want it to do (even loopbacks... but it doesn't
use a
> loop back mechanism... it relies on the NAT to recognize your public
IP as
> being local... so it kinda loopbacks without leaving the LAN).

> Basically... from what you have explained... winroute is your
solution. If
> you need a hand I can help you out getting sorted. Also... I just ran
a
> dedicated server in GPL last night on my gateway machine... and played
> through the public IP address on my LAN gamebox via VROC. No problemo
at
> all. Just make sure "alternate IP lookup" is set on the gateway
machine, or
> the dedicated server you want to run. Then map the ports if the server
is
> not your gateway machine as need. Simply change the ports used on the
> playing machines accordingly and map them in winroute. Voila... Bob's
your
> uncle...

> Cheers,
> Schumi

> "Alison Hine" <alison...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:eb0dsuomlrotadhl1h8dqj9rsn52ir0uri@4ax.com...
> > Ok, I've got another question for you guys!

> > I've been having trouble with my internet connection (cable modem
> > through AT&T) lately. A few weeks ago the old NetGear/LANCity cable
> > modem died, so I bought a shiny new Toshiba PCX2200.

> > That improved things, but I was still getting spiking latency and
sync
> > problems when racing GPL online - even when racing on my own server!
> > The other day a driver in the UK joined a race on my server, and we
had
> > a great duel. Afterwards, discussing it in the chat, he said he'd
been
> > having latency problems with my server that he doesn't have with
other
> > servers in the US.

> > I suspected Sygate might be the problem, since a lot of people have
said
> > that it tends to have relatively poor performance and reliability.

> > BTW, here's my configuration:

> > The Win98 computer is mainly a router, although it also does
occasional
> > duty as an FTP server and a print server.

> > I decided to replace Sygate with Winroute. But before doing this, I
ran
> > a UOTrace polling test to a server in the UK. After shutting down
> > Sygate and installing Winroute, I ran another UOTrace to the same
> > server.

> > The difference was remarkable! The test through Sygate had much
higher
> > average and peak latencies on every router but one than the Winroute
> > test did (that router was probably overloaded at the time). Sygate
also
> > had many lost packets, while Winroute didn't lose any during its
test!

> > So I'm convinced that Sygate is a poor choice for a router, and
Winroute
> > is a much better choice. Also, Winroute is incredibly easy to set
up
> > for GPL, especially compared to Sygate's arcane port mapping method.

> > The only disadvantage I've found with Winroute so far is that it
won't
> > route traffic from my LAN back through mapped ports. This means I
can't
> > join races hosted on my own GPL server through WinVROC; I have to
join
> > them directly across the LAN. Sygate allowed me to join my own
server
> > through WinVROC. It's a small annoyance, but I can live with it.

> > However, I'm faced with a bit of a dilemma. Compared to a hardware
> > router, Winroute Lite is quite expensive:

> > 3 client license (including the router) - $80
> > 10 client license - $200

> > There is also Winroute Pro (adds a firewall), which costs $150 for 5
> > clients.

> > Winroute says it takes 15 minutes after any activity for a client to
> > time out and free up one of the user slots. Also the router - the
> > machine running Winroute - is always using one of the user slots, so
> > with the 3 user license effectively you've got only two more slots.

> > I've got eight machines on my LAN. Granted, I don't use them all at
> > once! But I can easily envision situations where I'm using more
than
> > three at a time, especially since the router always accounts for one
> > slot.

> > If anyone is racing on my GPL server, that leaves me with Internet
> > access from only one machine. If I'm running WinVROC or GPL on my
> > racing computer and someone mentions a new GPL track or whatever in
the
> > chat, I wouldn't be able to check out its Web page or GPL Track
Database
> > from my other computer. If my housemate is online, I'm screwed!

> > So the $80 3-user license is out. That leaves the $150 5-user Pro
> > license as a minimum. But Best Buy has tons of cable/DSL hardware
> > routers for $30 to $150. These are made by Belkin, D-Link, Linksys,
> > Siemens, even Microsoft.

> > How can Winroute stay in business charging more for a software
product
> > than these companies are charging for hardware that does the same
thing?
> > Is Winroute that much better than the hardware routers? Is it
better at
> > all?

> > Does anyone have any experience with any of these hardware routers?
> > Which work well with GPL and other racing sims, and which do not?

> > Here are the features I'm aware of that I need:

> > - Allow simultaneous Internet access by at least five client
computers
> > on the LAN, and non-simultaneous access by all eight.

> > - Allow very flexible port mapping, especially for GPL servers and
F1
> > 2002, which has a completely different port scheme requiring
allocation
> > of thousands of ports with no trigger port. Also allow me to map
> > incoming FTP and Web server ports to a machine on my LAN while
allowing
> > outgoing traffic to FTP and Web servers on the internet.

> > - DNS server forwarding.

> > - DHCP server (nice but not essential).

> > I've got 27 days left on my 30 day Winroute free trial period. Any
> > suggestions are welcome!

> > Alison

> > From: ARGLEBARGLEeaglewo...@maximumspeed.com
> > Reply-To: ARGLEBARGLEeaglewo...@maximumspeed.com
> > Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me.
> > http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com

by **Alison Hin** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:20:11

Thanks for all the info, guys! Sounds like Linksys is the way to go if
I decide to use a hardware router.

BTW, MadDawg, what model of Linksys are you using? The current 4-port
switch/router seems to be the BEFSX41, $99 at Best Buy.

Your configuration is certainly one I could do, using my existing hub to
attach my non-critical systems to the switch.

Alison

Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Alison Hin** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:43:02

Schumi-

Excellent analysis! Thanks for posting so much detail. Winroute really
does seem to be a very good product.

However, I have a couple of questions. First, a minor issue. How do I
turn on Winroute's loopback function? I'm using Winroute Lite, and it
does not seem to loopback. I can't join a race hosted on my own GPL
server (on my LAN) through WinVROC. This is something I could do with
Sygate. I've looked through all the Winroute documentation and can't
even find a reference to loopback. Winroute Lite doesn't seem to have a
checkbox for this either.

Secondly, you seem to have overestimated my networking requirements a
little - especially scalability. I'm no enterprise! The only reason
I've got eight computers is that for a few years I was building a new
computer every year or two, to get the best out of racing sims.

I kept the old ones because I was able to find a use for them, and I
couldn't get much money for them if I tried to sell them. Only two of
the computers are good clients for racing GPL or F1 2002 on. A third
runs GPL only as a server. The rest (133 to 225 mhz) are only good for
email and Web browsing, scattered around the house.

Now that I'm running the real-world Cobra, I can't afford to build any
more new computers, so I've had to content myself with making
incremental upgrades to my existing ones. So I'm not likely to add any
more computers any time soon.

Regarding the Linksys port mapping limitation of twelve ranges, the only
server needs I have are:

- GPL server on a computer dedicated to that task (one range)
- FTP server on a different computer (single port)
- possible very occasional testing of a second GPL server (one range)
- occasional use of F1 2002 on one computer (one huge range)
- possible very occasional use of F1 2002 on another computer (another
huge range)

This is only four ranges and a single port. Even if the single port
uses up a whole slot, I've still got seven slots to play with.

Am I missing something here? I'm having a hard time seeing a
justification for spending $150 for a 5-user Winroute Pro license or
$200 for 10-user Winroute Lite instead of $99 or less for a Linksys
router. If Winroute's low-end pricing policy were a little more
logical, I'd do it in a second, but right now it seems to make no sense.

Alison

On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:34:30 GMT, "Schumi" <ja...@relaygames.com> wrote:
>Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router prices to
>Winroute's price is a little unfair to begin with TBH. Its like comparing
>apples to oranges I'm afraid.

>When you compare winroute's enterprise level support, to an enterprise level
>router (same features) you quickly see that you save over $1,000.00 by
>choosing winroute, and as a bonus... you get scaleability that the hardware
>routers often lack without a complete replacement.

>In a nutshell... from what you have told me about your network, what you
>want to do with it, how many boxes you want connect simultaneously, price
>range, etc. I'd have to say to remove a router solution from the equation
>entirely. There simply isn't a hardware solution out there for you I'm
>afraid. I'll tell you why:

>1) The fundamental problem with *home-level* routers is their inherit lack
>of onboard memory. It is this lack of memory that is the cause of all the
>feature swapping, and lack of overall features thereof. There simply isn't
>enough onboard memory to do everything you want.

>Lets take a LinkSys router as an example. If all you want to do is have 8
>machines surf the Internet at the same time... a linksys router is a good
>choice for you. However, you want to host servers, and spread the tasks
>(ports) amongst a variety of LAN computers.

>Problem #1: You got 12 port range slots to work with. Thaz IT. Once you
>specify those 12 port mappings... you reach the limit that router will do.
>So... basically you get 1.25 port mappings per box (based on 8 LAN
>machines). If you want to hosty F12002 games... this is simply not going to
>be enough.

>Whereas with winroute (which I have been using and preaching for YEARS) you
>are not limited, and indeed the port mapping function is ultra slick. If the
>gateway machine is bogging down a bit because of all the winroute traffic
>(it'd have to be a 486DX with 16 MB of RAM to really bog down over 8
>machines running full tilt 24/7) you simply upgrade the computer (put in a
>higher CPU and some more RAM). voila. Infinitely scaleable, very stable,
>does EVERYTHING you want it to do (even loopbacks... but it doesn't use a
>loop back mechanism... it relies on the NAT to recognize your public IP as
>being local... so it kinda loopbacks without leaving the LAN).

>Basically... from what you have explained... winroute is your solution. If
>you need a hand I can help you out getting sorted. Also... I just ran a
>dedicated server in GPL last night on my gateway machine... and played
>through the public IP address on my LAN gamebox via VROC. No problemo at
>all. Just make sure "alternate IP lookup" is set on the gateway machine, or
>the dedicated server you want to run. Then map the ports if the server is
>not your gateway machine as need. Simply change the ports used on the
>playing machines accordingly and map them in winroute. Voila... Bob's your
>uncle...

>Cheers,
>Schumi

>"Alison Hine" <alison...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:eb0dsuomlrotadhl1h8dqj9rsn52ir0uri@4ax.com...
>> Ok, I've got another question for you guys!

>> I've been having trouble with my internet connection (cable modem
>> through AT&T) lately. A few weeks ago the old NetGear/LANCity cable
>> modem died, so I bought a shiny new Toshiba PCX2200.

>> That improved things, but I was still getting spiking latency and sync
>> problems when racing GPL online - even when racing on my own server!
>> The other day a driver in the UK joined a race on my server, and we had
>> a great duel. Afterwards, discussing it in the chat, he said he'd been
>> having latency problems with my server that he doesn't have with other
>> servers in the US.

>> I suspected Sygate might be the problem, since a lot of people have said
>> that it tends to have relatively poor performance and reliability.

>> BTW, here's my configuration:

>> The Win98 computer is mainly a router, although it also does occasional
>> duty as an FTP server and a print server.

>> I decided to replace Sygate with Winroute. But before doing this, I ran
>> a UOTrace polling test to a server in the UK. After shutting down
>> Sygate and installing Winroute, I ran another UOTrace to the same
>> server.

>> The difference was remarkable! The test through Sygate had much higher
>> average and peak latencies on every router but one than the Winroute
>> test did (that router was probably overloaded at the time). Sygate also
>> had many lost packets, while Winroute didn't lose any during its test!

>> So I'm convinced that Sygate is a poor choice for a router, and Winroute
>> is a much better choice. Also, Winroute is incredibly easy to set up
>> for GPL, especially compared to Sygate's arcane port mapping method.

>> The only disadvantage I've found with Winroute so far is that it won't
>> route traffic from my LAN back through mapped ports. This means I can't
>> join races hosted on my own GPL server through WinVROC; I have to join
>> them directly across the LAN. Sygate allowed me to join my own server
>> through WinVROC. It's a small annoyance, but I can live with it.

>> However, I'm faced with a bit of a dilemma. Compared to a hardware
>> router, Winroute Lite is quite expensive:

>> 3 client license (including the router) - $80
>> 10 client license - $200

>> There is also Winroute Pro (adds a firewall), which costs $150 for 5
>> clients.

>> Winroute says it takes 15 minutes after any activity for a client to
>> time out and free up one of the user slots. Also the router - the
>> machine running Winroute - is always using one of the user slots, so
>> with the 3 user license effectively you've got only two more slots.

>> I've got eight machines on my LAN. Granted, I don't use them all at
>> once! But I can easily envision situations where I'm using more than
>> three at a time, especially since the router always accounts for one
>> slot.

>> If anyone is racing on my GPL server, that leaves me with Internet
>> access from only one machine. If I'm running WinVROC or GPL on my
>> racing computer and someone mentions a new GPL track or whatever in the
>> chat, I wouldn't be able to check out its Web page or GPL Track Database
>> from my other computer. If my housemate is online, I'm screwed!

>> So the $80 3-user license is out. That leaves the $150 5-user Pro
>> license as a minimum. But Best Buy has tons of cable/DSL hardware
>> routers for $30 to $150. These are made by Belkin, D-Link, Linksys,
>> Siemens, even Microsoft.

>> How can Winroute stay in business charging more for a software product
>> than these companies are charging for hardware that does the same thing?
>> Is Winroute that much better than the hardware routers? Is it better at
>> all?

>> Does anyone have any experience with any of these hardware routers?
>> Which work well with GPL and other racing sims, and which do not?

>> Here are the features I'm aware of that I need:

>> - Allow simultaneous Internet access by at least five client computers
>> on the LAN, and non-simultaneous access by all eight.

>> - Allow very flexible port mapping, especially for GPL servers and F1
>> 2002, which has a completely different port scheme requiring allocation
>> of thousands of ports with no trigger port. Also allow me

...

read more »

by **Schum** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:46:47

Hi Allison,

The *main* diffrence between Winroute and Sygate, is that Winroute is
implicit by design, and sygate is explicit. In plain english... Winroute
will automate many of the more deeper routing tasks for you and do so
through set rules and procedure. Whereas sygate, you must explicitly tell it
to do even the most minute detail. On the surface this may seem like Sygate
would therefore be more robust (you can be more explicit in routing
algorithms), but once you understand how Winroute accepts and forwards
packets... it becomes the same as Sygate.. only easier :)

The first thing you must consider when using Winroute is the following:

1) Winroute will always consult the Port Mapping Table first and foremost.
2) If *not* found in the routing table, *then* check for LAN machine origins
(which computer sent a request for this information)
3) If not originating from a LAN machine request... handle locally on the
gateway machine.

In network flow:

Port Table -> NAT -> Local OS

So now that we know this... we will go about manipulating this strict flow
to our advantage.

Lets start by working backwards through the flow.

1) Put as much as you can on your gateway machine, and route the resources
through the network itself (the FTP server is running on the gateway
machine... which is pulling files from a box behind the scenes through
simple Windows Disk Mapping). Things like FTP servers, etc. It simplifies
things exponentially, and indeed increases security. It doesn't take much to
run these services, so why not. The worst that will happen is that they
attack the gateway... and then it goes down... leaving the rest of your
network now untouchable.

2) Now we skip NAT (it is only used when the LAN machines initiate the
requests... which is not what is happening in game servers). Now we look at
the port mapping table, and I am sure this will answer your loopback
dilemna.

The most important thing to remember is that in Winroute Land... Port
Mapping is GOD. So if you map port 32766 to your server... ALL packets
(regardless of origins/etc.) will be forwarded to that machine. So... if you
have your game machines using port 32766 as well... it isn't going to reach
your game machine on the return... it is going to go directly to the server
machine... which will discard the packet.

The trick is to make sure that the port mappings for the server are first
set, and that the alternate IP lookup is set in core.ini. Once you have set
that (traditionally 32766) that port is now taken. You cannot use that port
on any other machine in the network (this is why running the server on the
gateway simplifies things... you don't need to map ports... and thus the LAN
is capable of using any ports they want). However... we run the server on a
LAN box... and we run it on 32766. So... we now go about editing all of our
other core.ini's for all the playing boxes to use another port (hey... why
not 32767,768,769,770,etc.) Then map those ports explicitly in port
mappings.

Then we simply run the server... register it with WinVROC, and make sure it
is using the public IP address. Then you simply join into VROC... and select
the server.

Then this is what happens...

You now use different ports... and you are trying to connect to a public IP.
However, Winroute recognizes that it is a LOCAL ip (it is in the registry as
an IP that is present... and used by winroute). So instead of looping
through your ISP and back... it will implicitly recognize it as local, and
will actually auto-loopback. The trick.. is in the port mappings... NAT
comes AFTER port mappings :) Be explicit in your ports in your port
mapping.. and voila.. routing occurs seamlessly.

To prove my point... run that server config above... and "inspect" the
server on the LAN... it will be a direct hit... not through the ISP/etc.
even though you are telling it to goto the ISP public IP on the other end of
the network. Its a nice and neat little system once you understand the
fundamentals and the order in which information is processed.

------

As for overestimating your network... it may on the surface appear to be
so... but in my experience... those 12 slots find homes REAL fast even with
only 2 boxes running. When dealing with ISI netcode... expect teh worst and
pray for the best in the port department. You may *think* it is 1 big
range... but on my machine... I have 3 separate ranges because their
*dynamic range* seems to straddle other mappings... which is chaos. Plan for
up to 4-5 different ranges for F12001/2 depending on how spread out your
daemons are on the other boxes. ISI put that range right smack dab in the
middle of OS/common-prog ports/etc.and is a royal PITA.

You start adding game machines and port mappings for different games...
those 12 disappear FAST. Besides... even if you didn't use them up... you're
at the very least going to end up pushing it... and when you run out (you
will... trust me)... yuou will end up having to get winroute anyways.. and
eating the $100.00 on the router and use it as a paper weight.

If all you are doing is joining games and surfing and emailing... routers
are fine... no port mappings needed, and you let the onboard NAT handle
everything. As soon as you start adding servers AND wanting to also play....
routers become a moot point... you need winroute.

For the record... I don't work for Tiny/Kerio. I just like their product(s)
(Tiny Personal Firewall is another nice home soft... and its free).

Drop me an email at: remove4spam-relayga...@hotmail.com and I'll get you
are lined up with configs/etc. Maybe as a return favor.. you can tell me how
to get rid of the push in your ferrari setups at MoSport in time for my club
race on Wednesday :)

"Alison Hine" <alison...@attbi.com> wrote in message

news:vovdsusfjei1hj00rnr6ath76ugcurelo1@4ax.com...

> Schumi-

> Excellent analysis! Thanks for posting so much detail. Winroute really
> does seem to be a very good product.

> However, I have a couple of questions. First, a minor issue. How do I
> turn on Winroute's loopback function? I'm using Winroute Lite, and it
> does not seem to loopback. I can't join a race hosted on my own GPL
> server (on my LAN) through WinVROC. This is something I could do with
> Sygate. I've looked through all the Winroute documentation and can't
> even find a reference to loopback. Winroute Lite doesn't seem to have a
> checkbox for this either.

> Secondly, you seem to have overestimated my networking requirements a
> little - especially scalability. I'm no enterprise! The only reason
> I've got eight computers is that for a few years I was building a new
> computer every year or two, to get the best out of racing sims.

> I kept the old ones because I was able to find a use for them, and I
> couldn't get much money for them if I tried to sell them. Only two of
> the computers are good clients for racing GPL or F1 2002 on. A third
> runs GPL only as a server. The rest (133 to 225 mhz) are only good for
> email and Web browsing, scattered around the house.

> Now that I'm running the real-world Cobra, I can't afford to build any
> more new computers, so I've had to content myself with making
> incremental upgrades to my existing ones. So I'm not likely to add any
> more computers any time soon.

> Regarding the Linksys port mapping limitation of twelve ranges, the only
> server needs I have are:

> - GPL server on a computer dedicated to that task (one range)
> - FTP server on a different computer (single port)
> - possible very occasional testing of a second GPL server (one range)
> - occasional use of F1 2002 on one computer (one huge range)
> - possible very occasional use of F1 2002 on another computer (another
> huge range)

> This is only four ranges and a single port. Even if the single port
> uses up a whole slot, I've still got seven slots to play with.

> Am I missing something here? I'm having a hard time seeing a
> justification for spending $150 for a 5-user Winroute Pro license or
> $200 for 10-user Winroute Lite instead of $99 or less for a Linksys
> router. If Winroute's low-end pricing policy were a little more
> logical, I'd do it in a second, but right now it seems to make no sense.

> Alison

> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:34:30 GMT, "Schumi" <ja...@relaygames.com> wrote:

> >Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router prices to
> >Winroute's price is a little unfair to begin with TBH. Its like comparing
> >apples to oranges I'm afraid.

> >When you compare winroute's enterprise level support, to an enterprise
level
> >router (same features) you quickly see that you save over $1,000.00 by
> >choosing winroute, and as a bonus... you get scaleability that the
hardware
> >routers often lack without a complete replacement.

> >In a nutshell... from what you have told me about your network, what you
> >want to do with it, how many boxes you want connect simultaneously, price
> >range, etc. I'd have to say to remove a router solution from the equation
> >entirely. There simply isn't a hardware solution out there for you I'm
> >afraid. I'll tell you why:

> >1) The fundamental problem with *home-level* routers is their inherit
lack
> >of onboard memory. It is this lack of memory that is the cause of all the
> >feature swapping, and lack of overall features thereof. There simply
isn't
> >enough onboard memory to do everything you want.

> >Lets take a LinkSys router as an example. If all you want to do is have 8
> >machines surf the Internet at the same time... a linksys router is a good
> >choice for you. However, you want to host servers, and spread the tasks
> >(ports) amongst a variety of LAN computers.

> >Problem #1: You got 12 port range slots to work with. Thaz IT. Once you
> >specify those 12 port mappings... you reach the limit that router will
do.
> >So... basically you get 1.25 port mappings per box (based on 8 LAN
> >machines). If you want to hosty F12002 games... this is simply not

...

read more »

by **MadDAW** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 19:53:20

I am at work now, but IIRC its a BEFSR41.

MadDAWG

by **MadDAW** » Wed, 06 Nov 2002 20:06:21

A little good news bad news

The good news
With a Linksys (at least mine anyway) FTP and HTTP are mapped seperatly
from the IP forwarding used for ***.

The bad news
It only has 10 port ranges to forward not 12. :(

Right now I have
NR2002
DTR2
F12002
OLR
GPL

I think I still have one spot left. Some games will require two slots if
thier port ranges are not grouped together. Now at least with the Papy games
you can edit the ini files to set you own ranges so you probably could get
them together to cut down the slots required.

MadDAWG

rec.autos.simulators

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?

Winroute vs. hardware router?