Sorry if I missed posts relevant to this, but I've just
been skipping through this thread catching up, as I only
came upon it recently (Zeuspaul, you should have clued me
in!).
For Windows networks, NT can provide TCP/IP passthrough
services. For an inhouse lan, why not? (Well, if you
don't run NT, that's why not, obviously). I have
a $20 switch box that switches a modem between two
machines for fault tolerance. I actually have modems
on both for other reasons (dial out on another line for
proprietary access, such as BBS or transmitting checkfree
payments), but the fast modem (56kb) can be switched
cheaply. I guess this is a hardware/software solution
in that both machines have NT (and can act as IP routers
for the entire inhouse lan) and the modem switch makes
either available for it in case of hardware failure.
Which has happened (disk controller failure, geckkk).
You get other things from NT, too, such as better recovery
from GP faults in errant aps. Of course you also get
less hardware support. Life's a trade off.
My question got lost in all this. The question is, if you're
going to the expense of setting up multiple PCs on an
inhouse lan, what is the advantage of various proxy software
packages over using NT and it's builtin TCP/IP routing
services? For a bigger lan, sure, you've got the routing
load. But for inhouse (I have 6 PCs in my inhouse network)
it's mouse nuts. Uh, for pentiums. I guess if you're running
486's that's another reason.
NT workstation costs little more than Win 95
and has other advantages, especially if you're doing serious
networking (which you are doing if you have more than just
a couple of PCs connected).
Regards,
Spots |
