rec.autos.simulators

>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

>>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

>Alison

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

"Haqsau" <haq...@planetquake.com> wrote in message

> 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:

> > >     cable
> > >        |
> > >   Toshiba cable modem
> > >        |
> > >        |
> > >   Win98 computer with Sygate or Winroute
> > > |
> > > |
> > >      NetGear hub --------
> > >       |       | |
> > >       |       |       other clients ...
> > >       |       |
> > >       |   GPL Server
> > >       |
> > >    GPL client

> > > 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

> My Draytek Vigor 2200E has 10 groups times 10 (100) Open Port ranges. In
> addition to this it has 10 redirects, 10 single ports that can be mapped to
> different port numbers on the inside.
> It also has VPN.
> Don't know if this router is available all over the would though. For some
> reason Billion and SMC seem to be what most people use over here. (Norway)

On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:10:08 GMT, "Schumi" <ja...@relaygames.com> wrote:
>As a rule of thumb... you are ALWAYS better off using the NT kernel if win32
>is your preferred flavor. The exception to the rule however is Windows XP (I
>HATE that OS for reasons too bountiful to mention in an otherwise quick
>post).

>I was struck with a case of selective hearing there... Win98/95/Me/XP seem
>to go in one ear and out the other.

>So, yes, she would always be better off using Windows 2000 throughout the
>LAN... not just the gateway. But certainly for the gateway :)

>Cheers,
>Schumi

>"Haqsau" <haq...@planetquake.com> wrote in message
>news:aq6q86$79cnd$1@ID-125164.news.dfncis.de...
>> 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:

>> > >     cable
>> > >        |
>> > >   Toshiba cable modem
>> > >        |
>> > >        |
>> > >   Win98 computer with Sygate or Winroute
>> > > |
>> > > |
>> > >      NetGear hub --------
>> > >       |       | |
>> > >       |       |       other clients ...
>> > >       |       |
>> > >       |   GPL Server
>> > >       |
>> > >    GPL client

>> > > 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?

>Hi Alison,
>    WinRoute does not support that. You would have to use the
>machine's private IP address.  

>Jeff Wadlow
>Technical Support Engineer
>Kerio Technologies
>2855 Kifer Rd
>Santa Clara, CA 95051
>Tel 408.496.4500
>www.kerio.com

On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 04:46:47 GMT, "Schumi" <ja...@relaygames.com> wrote:
>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

> Alison, after all the help you have given us/me, let me say as an IT
> professional who works with this stuff everyday, MadDAWG's approach is the
> way to go.  Software firewalls will always be problematic for our online
> racing purposes.  Routers with hardware firewalls built-in are so cheap now
> it is a no-brainer to go that way.  D-Link, Linksys and SMC are all fine
> choices that allow you to control specific ports.

> Marc

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

> Guys-

> My current gateway/router computer is a homebuilt P-166 with 32 mb of
> memory and a 3 gb hard drive.  It also serves as an FTP server for
> replays from my GPL server and a printer server for an HP 720C.

> My understanding is that Win2000 needs a lot more computer (especially
> memory) than that to run well.  Is that correct?

> Obviously I could upgrade the router/gateway computer, but even just a
> memory upgrade pushes the cost of the Winroute solution.  Not to
mention
> the potential hassle of a Win2000 upgrade, and its impact on the
limited
> hard drive space.

> I do own a Win2000 upgrade CD, but have never used it, so I have no
idea
> what I'd be getting into.  Based on previous experience with Microsoft
> OS upgrades, it's likely to be something I won't enjoy very much - and
> remember, if I hose this system, I'm off the Internet till I fix it!

> Compared to this, a nice $80 hardware router, even with only adequate
> port mapping, sounds mighty attractive!

> Alison

> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:10:08 GMT, "Schumi" <ja...@relaygames.com>
wrote:

> >As a rule of thumb... you are ALWAYS better off using the NT kernel
if win32
> >is your preferred flavor. The exception to the rule however is
Windows XP (I
> >HATE that OS for reasons too bountiful to mention in an otherwise
quick
> >post).

> >I was struck with a case of selective hearing there... Win98/95/Me/XP
seem
> >to go in one ear and out the other.

> >So, yes, she would always be better off using Windows 2000 throughout
the
> >LAN... not just the gateway. But certainly for the gateway :)

> >Cheers,
> >Schumi

> >"Haqsau" <haq...@planetquake.com> wrote in message
> >news:aq6q86$79cnd$1@ID-125164.news.dfncis.de...
> >> 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:

> >> > >     cable
> >> > >        |
> >> > >   Toshiba cable modem
> >> > >        |
> >> > >        |
> >> > >   Win98 computer with Sygate or Winroute
> >> > > |
> >> > > |
> >> > >      NetGear hub --------
> >> > >       |       | |
> >> > >       |       |       other clients ...
> >> > >       |       |
> >> > >       |   GPL Server
> >> > >       |
> >> > >    GPL client

> >> > > 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

> Alison, after all the help you have given us/me, let me say as an IT
> professional who works with this stuff everyday, MadDAWG's approach is the
> way to go.  Software firewalls will always be problematic for our online
> racing purposes.  Routers with hardware firewalls built-in are so cheap
now
> it is a no-brainer to go that way.  D-Link, Linksys and SMC are all fine
> choices that allow you to control specific ports.

> Marc

> > 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