Winroute vs. hardware router?

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: [email hidden] Reply-To: [email hidden] Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com

Alison Hine wrote: > > 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--

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 gaming 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 Hine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, I've got another question for you guys!<sniiiiiiip> 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

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 On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:28:30 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>Alison Hine wrote: >> >> 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 From: [email hidden] Reply-To: [email hidden] Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

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

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (119 lines)

> 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: [email hidden] > Reply-To: [email hidden] > Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. > http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com

Schumi 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. <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--

Alison Hine wrote: > > 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--

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aZzx9.688424$[email hidden]... > Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router prices to > Winroute's price is a little unfair to begin with TBH. Its likecomparing > apples to oranges I'm afraid. > > When you compare winroute's enterprise level support, to an enterpriselevel > router (same features) you quickly see that you save over $1,000.00 by > choosing winroute, and as a bonus... you get scaleability that thehardware > routers often lack without a complete replacement. > > In a nutshell... from what you have told me about your network, whatyou > 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 theequation > 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 inheritlack > of onboard memory. It is this lack of memory that is the cause of allthe > feature swapping, and lack of overall features thereof. There simplyisn't > enough onboard memory to do everything you want. > > Lets take a LinkSys router as an example. If all you want to do ishave 8 > machines surf the Internet at the same time... a linksys router is agood > choice for you. However, you want to host servers, and spread thetasks > (ports) amongst a variety of LAN computers. > > Problem #1: You got 12 port range slots to work with. Thaz IT. Onceyou > specify those 12 port mappings... you reach the limit that router willdo. > 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 notgoing to > be enough. > > Whereas with winroute (which I have been using and preaching forYEARS) 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 winroutetraffic > (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 (putin a > higher CPU and some more RAM). voila. Infinitely scaleable, verystable, > does EVERYTHING you want it to do (even loopbacks... but it doesn'tuse a > loop back mechanism... it relies on the NAT to recognize your publicIP as > being local... so it kinda loopbacks without leaving the LAN). > > Basically... from what you have explained... winroute is yoursolution. If > you need a hand I can help you out getting sorted. Also... I just rana > dedicated server in GPL last night on my gateway machine... and played > through the public IP address on my LAN gamebox via VROC. No problemoat > all. Just make sure "alternate IP lookup" is set on the gatewaymachine, or > the dedicated server you want to run. Then map the ports if the serveris > not your gateway machine as need. Simply change the ports used on the > playing machines accordingly and map them in winroute. Voila... Bob'syour

Quoted text (15 lines)

> uncle... > > Cheers, > Schumi > > > "Alison Hine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 wehad > > a great duel. Afterwards, discussing it in the chat, he said he'dbeen > > having latency problems with my server that he doesn't have withother > > servers in the US. > > > > I suspected Sygate might be the problem, since a lot of people havesaid

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > 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, Iran > > 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 muchhigher > > average and peak latencies on every router but one than the Winroute > > test did (that router was probably overloaded at the time). Sygatealso > > had many lost packets, while Winroute didn't lose any during itstest! > > > > So I'm convinced that Sygate is a poor choice for a router, andWinroute > > is a much better choice. Also, Winroute is incredibly easy to setup > > for GPL, especially compared to Sygate's arcane port mapping method. > > > > The only disadvantage I've found with Winroute so far is that itwon't > > route traffic from my LAN back through mapped ports. This means Ican't > > join races hosted on my own GPL server through WinVROC; I have tojoin > > them directly across the LAN. Sygate allowed me to join my ownserver

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > 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 inthe > > chat, I wouldn't be able to check out its Web page or GPL TrackDatabase

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 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 samething? > > Is Winroute that much better than the hardware routers? Is itbetter at

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 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 andF1 > > 2002, which has a completely different port scheme requiringallocation > > 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 whileallowing

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 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: [email hidden] > > Reply-To: [email hidden] > > Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. > > http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com > >

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 On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:07:21 -0500, "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (37 lines)

>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 >gaming 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 From: [email hidden] Reply-To: [email hidden] Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

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" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (177 lines)

>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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> 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: [email hidden] >> Reply-To: [email hidden] >> Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. >> http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com >

Alison [email hidden] www.alison.hine.net www.alisonnic.com www.vroc.net ________ / \ _/__________\_ /_ \ '====' / _\ |(_) ____ (_)| |\o [] (____) [] o/| | ---______--- | '---' '---'

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: [email hidden] 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> 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" <[email hidden]> 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 thehardware

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >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 simplyisn't

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >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 goingto > >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. Ifthe > >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 ina > >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 IPas > >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'syour

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >uncle... > > > >Cheers, > >Schumi > > > > > >"Alison Hine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> 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

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >> 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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> 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, andWinroute > >> 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 Ican't

Quoted text (27 lines)

> >> 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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> 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 betterat

Quoted text (43 lines)

> >> 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: [email hidden] > >> Reply-To: [email hidden] > >> Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. > >> http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com > > > > > Alison > > [email hidden] www.alison.hine.net www.alisonnic.com www.vroc.net > ________ > / \ > _/__________\_ > /_ \ '====' / _\ > |(_) ____ (_)| > |\o [] (____) [] o/| > | ---______--- | > '---' '---'

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

> - FTP server on a different computer (single port) 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 gaming. 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

Just got one for my brother-in-law at Buy.com with a $10 rebate. $59.99 free shipping. SLG Alison Hine <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (59 lines)

>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 > >On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:07:21 -0500, "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>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 >>gaming 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 > >From: [email hidden] >Reply-To: [email hidden] >Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. >http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers)

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aq6q86$79cnd$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (243 lines)

> 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aZzx9.688424$[email hidden]... > > 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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: [email hidden] > > > Reply-To: [email hidden] > > > 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) Jone.

Jone Tytlandsvik wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 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)

That's because they're fairly good products, cheap, and available through the biggest online shop in Norway (Komplett) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

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" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (261 lines)

>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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:aq6q86$79cnd$[email hidden]... >> 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:aZzx9.688424$[email hidden]... >> > 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:[email hidden]... >> > > 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: [email hidden] >> > > Reply-To: [email hidden] >> > > Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. >> > > http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com >> > >> > >> >

Alison [email hidden] www.alison.hine.net www.alisonnic.com www.vroc.net ________ / \ _/__________\_ /_ \ '====' / _\ |(_) ____ (_)| |\o [] (____) [] o/| | ---______--- | '---' '---'

Schumi - I had already configured everything the way you suggested in this post. Remember, I had loopback working in Sygate, so the "use alternate IP addressing flag was already set in core.ini". And I had the ports to the GPL server mapped in Winroute. I know that was correct because people were able to join my server from outside. Just to be sure, I also followed your suggestion and mapped the GPL client's port range in Winroute, even though those ports only come into play if that machine acts as a GPL server. Still no joy. So I called Winroute and wound up talking to a salesman who thought that loopback was only supported on Win98SE and above. He suggested I contact Winroute tech support to make sure. I emailed tech support about server loopback. Here was their reply:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>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

Incidentally, as you said, WinVROC's Inspect feature shows only one hop to the server on my LAN. So Winroute has to be looping that traffic back. But then again, this is a standard ping request to the gateway/router's public IP address, not to a server that is behind the router on the LAN, getting its traffic via the Winroute port mapping. Why doesn't Winroute also loop back GPL traffic or WinVROC remote launch requests? Apparently Winroute does not loop back traffic to port-mapped servers inside the LAN, but only traffic directed via its public IP address to servers (like the TCP/IP ping service) running on the gateway/router itself (the machine running Winroute). Jason, have you actually *joined* a GPL server on your LAN through WinVROC from a GPL client on your LAN? A GPL server running on a machine other than the gateway/router? My tests appear to show that this is impossible. If you did, were you using Winroute Lite or Winroute Pro, and which version? BTW, when called Winroute I asked the salesman about their pricing structure, which seems to make no sense given the current cost of hardware routers. He admitted that it's a problem. He explained that basically they are still using the pricing structure they started with four years ago, when cheap SOHO hardware routers didn't exist, and when it was rare for a home to have more than two or three computers. They decided to stick with this structure until the introduction of new technology, which unfortunately has taken longer than expected. Reading between the lines, I expect that sometime soon they will be reorganizing their pricing structure to better match today's market. Meanwhile, hardware routers look like a very good alternative. Regarding the limited port mapping range of the Linksys and other cheap routers: My main interests revolve around GPL. Until ISI improves their internet racing capabilities significantly, the F1 200x series will be of very limited interest to me. Hopefully at some point ISI will rework the multiplayer code to better deal with high and variable latency, because from what I've seen so far, unless you've got latency in the 10-20 ms range, the opponent cars hop around like UFO's on amphetamines. And when they are reworking the multiplayer code, maybe they'll reduce the cavernous port range to something sensible. <grin> Anyway, thanks for all your suggestions, Jason! Er, Schumi. ;) I still haven't decided which way to go, and all your information has been very helpful. Alison On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 04:46:47 GMT, "Schumi" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (378 lines)

>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: [email hidden] 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> 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" <[email hidden]> 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >news:[email hidden]... >> >> 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: [email hidden] >> >> Reply-To: [email hidden] >> >> Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. >> >> http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com >> > >> >> >> Alison >> >> [email hidden] www.alison.hine.net www.alisonnic.com www.vroc.net >> ________ >> / \ >> _/__________\_ >> /_ \ '====' / _\ >> |(_) ____ (_)| >> |\o [] (____) [] o/| >> | ---______--- | >> '---' '---' >

Alison From: [email hidden] Reply-To: [email hidden] Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

Jone- This sounds great! Could be the perfect solution! Where did you get it? How much does it cost? Does anyone know if it's available in the states? Also, is it available with a user interface in English? Alison On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:12:34 +0100, "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>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) > >Jone. >

Alison From: [email hidden] Reply-To: [email hidden] Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

Aha! Found more info at http://www.draytek.com.tw/ and http://www.bestsystemsdirect.com/. It's made in Taiwan and sells for $129, cheaper than either version of Winroute. Do you use this router for hosting GPL races on a server on your LAN, Jone? Do you know if it does loopback (i.e. does it allow you to join GPL races on your own server through WinVROC)? Also, how is the performance and reliability? When you join other GPL servers, do GPL's latency, quality, and sych meters show a lot of red flashes, or a nice stable small bar of latency and little or nothing on the other meters? Have you run traces to machines on the Internet with a utility such as UOTrace? How's the quality in terms of peak ping times and lost packets? Anyone else using one of these routers? Alison On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:12:34 +0100, "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>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) > >Jone. >

Alison From: [email hidden] Reply-To: [email hidden] Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.net

"like UFO's on amphetamines" Thats a god one, but do you mind if I change it to speed instead? My low life friends probably wouldn't get it the other way. lol MadDAWG

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 "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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 thrownat > it seems to do just fine. I did need a firmware update to get filetransfer

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 > gaming 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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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 hopcompared > to your setup. I'm not 100% sure but I think Linksys has an 8 portversion > 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 hookup > the "important" computers to, and hook the FTP server and others up thruthe > hub. > > > MadDAWG > >

"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Ctey9.5310$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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

A good analogy would be: Q: What does someone not too familiar with car setups and vehicle dynamics do when they're just trying to drive GPL and learn good car control? A: Use Alison's setups ;). Kendt

Actually the best solution for that machine would probably be to set it up as a Linux gateway/firewall/NAT router. It will run fine on that PC, and as long as you can figure out how to configure the blessed thing it has every feature you could possibly ask for. And best of all, it's free. ;o) "Alison Hine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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 thelimited > hard drive space. > > I do own a Win2000 upgrade CD, but have never used it, so I have noidea

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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" <[email hidden]>

wrote: > > >As a rule of thumb... you are ALWAYS better off using the NT kernelif win32 > >is your preferred flavor. The exception to the rule however isWindows XP (I > >HATE that OS for reasons too bountiful to mention in an otherwisequick > >post). > > > >I was struck with a case of selective hearing there... Win98/95/Me/XPseem > >to go in one ear and out the other. > > > >So, yes, she would always be better off using Windows 2000 throughoutthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >LAN... not just the gateway. But certainly for the gateway :) > > > >Cheers, > >Schumi > > > > > >"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:aq6q86$79cnd$[email hidden]... > >> 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 timingout 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, Iwould > >> think she would be better off with an NT based OS. > >> > >> > >> "Schumi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:aZzx9.688424$[email hidden]... > >> > Hmmm..... I guess to start... comparing Home-Based Router pricesto > >> > 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 anenterprise > >> level > >> > router (same features) you quickly see that you save over$1,000.00 by > >> > choosing winroute, and as a bonus... you get scaleability thatthe > >> 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 connectsimultaneously, > >> 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 foryou I'm > >> > afraid. I'll tell you why: > >> > > >> > 1) The fundamental problem with *home-level* routers is theirinherit > >> lack > >> > of onboard memory. It is this lack of memory that is the cause ofall > >> the > >> > feature swapping, and lack of overall features thereof. Theresimply > >> isn't > >> > enough onboard memory to do everything you want. > >> > > >> > Lets take a LinkSys router as an example. If all you want to dois > >> have 8 > >> > machines surf the Internet at the same time... a linksys routeris 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 routerwill > >> do. > >> > So... basically you get 1.25 port mappings per box (based on 8LAN > >> > machines). If you want to hosty F12002 games... this is simplynot > >> 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 ultraslick. > >> 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 downover 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 itdoesn't > >> use a > >> > loop back mechanism... it relies on the NAT to recognize yourpublic > >> 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 justran > >> a > >> > dedicated server in GPL last night on my gateway machine... andplayed > >> > through the public IP address on my LAN gamebox via VROC. Noproblemo > >> 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 theserver > >> is > >> > not your gateway machine as need. Simply change the ports used onthe > >> > playing machines accordingly and map them in winroute. Voila...Bob's

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> your > >> > uncle... > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Schumi > >> > > >> > > >> > "Alison Hine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> > news:[email hidden]... > >> > > 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/LANCitycable > >> > > modem died, so I bought a shiny new Toshiba PCX2200. > >> > > > >> > > That improved things, but I was still getting spiking latencyand > >> sync > >> > > problems when racing GPL online - even when racing on my ownserver! > >> > > 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 saidhe'd > >> been > >> > > having latency problems with my server that he doesn't havewith > >> other > >> > > servers in the US. > >> > > > >> > > I suspected Sygate might be the problem, since a lot of peoplehave > >> said > >> > > that it tends to have relatively poor performance andreliability.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >> > > > >> > > 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 shuttingdown > >> > > Sygate and installing Winroute, I ran another UOTrace to thesame > >> > > server. > >> > > > >> > > The difference was remarkable! The test through Sygate hadmuch > >> higher > >> > > average and peak latencies on every router but one than theWinroute > >> > > test did (that router was probably overloaded at the time).Sygate > >> also > >> > > had many lost packets, while Winroute didn't lose any duringits > >> 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 toset > >> up > >> > > for GPL, especially compared to Sygate's arcane port mappingmethod. > >> > > > >> > > The only disadvantage I've found with Winroute so far is thatit > >> won't > >> > > route traffic from my LAN back through mapped ports. Thismeans I > >> can't > >> > > join races hosted on my own GPL server through WinVROC; I haveto > >> 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 withit. > >> > > > >> > > However, I'm faced with a bit of a dilemma. Compared to ahardware > >> > > 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 $150for 5 > >> > > clients. > >> > > > >> > > Winroute says it takes 15 minutes after any activity for aclient to > >> > > time out and free up one of the user slots. Also the router -the > >> > > machine running Winroute - is always using one of the userslots, so > >> > > with the 3 user license effectively you've got only two moreslots. > >> > > > >> > > I've got eight machines on my LAN. Granted, I don't use themall at > >> > > once! But I can easily envision situations where I'm usingmore > >> than > >> > > three at a time, especially since the router always accountsfor one > >> > > slot. > >> > > > >> > > If anyone is racing on my GPL server, that leaves me withInternet > >> > > access from only one machine. If I'm running WinVROC or GPL onmy > >> > > racing computer and someone mentions a new GPL track orwhatever 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'mscrewed! > >> > > > >> > > So the $80 3-user license is out. That leaves the $150 5-userPro > >> > > license as a minimum. But Best Buy has tons of cable/DSLhardware > >> > > 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 thesame > >> thing? > >> > > Is Winroute that much better than the hardware routers? Is it > >> better at > >> > > all? > >> > > > >> > > Does anyone have any experience with any of these hardwarerouters? > >> > > Which work well with GPL and other racing sims, and which donot?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> > > > >> > > 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 tomap

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> > > 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

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >> > > suggestions are welcome! > >> > > > >> > > Alison > >> > > > >> > > From: [email hidden] > >> > > Reply-To: [email hidden] > >> > > Remove the spam blocker ARGLEBARGLE to email me. > >> > > http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Alison > > [email hidden] www.alison.hine.net www.alisonnic.com www.vroc.net > ________ > / \ > _/__________\_ > /_ \ '====' / _\ > |(_) ____ (_)| > |\o [] (____) [] o/| > | ---______--- | > '---' '---'

I agree 100%. Hardware is the way to go. -Larry "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ctey9.5310$[email hidden]... > 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 cheapnow

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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 > > "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 havethrown > 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 comewith > > 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 > > gaming computers all connect directly to the Linksys which wouldbasically > > skip the step thru the hub in your layout. Now I'm no network guru, buta

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > 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 tohook

Quoted text (11 lines)

> up > > the "important" computers to, and hook the FTP server and others up thru > the > > hub. > > > > > > MadDAWG > > > > > >

"Alison Hine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Do you use this router for hosting GPL races on a server on your LAN, > Jone? Do you know if it does loopback (i.e. does it allow you to join > GPL races on your own server through WinVROC)? I've set up the router to be able to host, and have tested to see that it works, but I have GPL installed on only one PC on the LAN. I'm not sure if it does loopback but I don't think so. I tried to traceroute my own public IP, and my ISP's router showed up in the list. I guess this means the packets will go to your ISP and back again, taking up bandwidth on your connection. Is this what you want to avoid? Is it not possible to just connect to the GPL server directly by using the local IP? > Also, how is the performance and reliability? When you join other GPL > servers, do GPL's latency, quality, and synch meters show a lot of red > flashes, or a nice stable small bar of latency and little or nothing on > the other meters? I must admit I don't pay much attention to these meters. But I just visited a few servers to have a look at them. The servers available at the moment had ping times between 60 and 110. Latency showed a steady 1/8, while Q and S sometimes show a flashing 1 pixel high bar, but most of the time nothing at all. > Have you run traces to machines on the Internet with a utility such as > UOTrace? How's the quality in terms of peak ping times and lost > packets? > I just downloaded UOTrace and have run it a few times. It has shown no loss so far. If I test Norwegian sites, I get 25ms best 30ms worst. If I test my ISP's router (the first line after my router when I traceroute, I get 20ms best 22ms worst. My router is connected to a Alcatel Speed Touch ADSL Modem (384/128) and is running PPPoE. I'm not sure but I think I would have had better ping if my ISP didn't use PPPoE. BTW. I really like your new X3 setups, but I don't think you have made one for Eagle/Solitude. Can I just use the one for the Ring? Should I change the gearbox or would that not be necessary for a track like this? Jone.

--Alison's whole post deleted, look at her post to see what she said-- Alison, what are you trying to achieve? I can join races on my own server that is behind a Linksys Router; I just do it from within GPL and not WinVROC. Is there a reason why you do not want to do it this way? Have you look at Linksys' site and downloaded the manual for the router to see if it does what you need? The biggest problem with an inexpensive cable/DSL router is that one can not set it up to forward certain ports to several different machines behind it. In-other-words, if I have two FTP servers behind the router I would need to set port forwarding to two machines, but would only be allowed to do it with one. I wonder if this would work if the ISP provided more than one IP address, I am at a loss on how it would be able to do this. I hate to say it, but a simple Linux machine setup to do the routing might be the best solution. The problem with this solution is you will have to learn Linux first and you will need to be sure you understand how to safeguard it against attack. Windows 2000 is a great OS and I have done an simple workstation install and setup the MooServer on it. I have found that it is the best MS OS out right now, as XP is not an option. I would never upgrade any Windows OS with an Upgrade disk. I would first format the disk and then start fresh. I will do an install of Win2k on a 32MB Pentium 200 here and see how it does. I have not messed with Win2k's Internet sharing. I did setup an FTP site on the MooServer that points to the Replay directory under GPL so that replays can be had without any work on my part. The other nice thing about Win2k is I can turn off all of the unused ports and keep most of the traffic legit. SLG (All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers)

I'm having second thoughts about this loopback thing, and suspect my Draytek Vigor to support loopback after all. If I ping my own public IP, I get <1ms. If I type my public IP into my browser, I get the management interface, even though it's set not to allow management from the Internet. Other posts in this thread indicate that if the router doesn't do loopback, I would not be able to reach my LAN using the public IP from the inside. I'm sure I can do this, I can reach my FTP server, I've just don't tested with GPL. (I can test with GPL next weekend.) So either my router support loopback or my ISP does. Is there something I can do to find out for sure? Jone.

On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:06:42 GMT, Alison Hine wrote: > Goy- > > Thanks for this info! The Small Net site has a lot of really good > information on it. > Hi Alison, there are several one-floppy Linux solutions out there which will do all you asked for in your post, and more, and usually for free. If you have an old box lying around (486dx33 upwards should be fine) you won't even need a hard disk, and most of these distros come with a windows configuration client so you don't even have to boot into Linux in order to configure it. Names that come to mind are coyote linux and fli4l. You might try googling around for those. HTH, Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:43:18 GMT, Alison Hine wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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?

well, now there's a perfect rig for setting up a linux router / ftp server / print server / Windows file server if ever I saw one! As a software engineer you should have no problems configuring this machine under any recent linux distro in text mode. Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61