Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Newberry who wrote (89761)	10/9/1999 12:02:00 PM
From: Jean M. Gauthier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wow. Thanks for the great explanation... Is Ugate made available for cable modem technology, not only xDSL ? Thx a lot take care jean

To: D. Newberry who wrote (89761)	10/9/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: Randy Ellingson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

D. Newberry, How is the Ugate+ product different from a NAT product such as Sygate ($39.95 for up to three PC's total, just the one @Home IP address required, others IP's private, www.sygate.com) of for that matter the NAT technology included with Win98SE (Internet Connection Sharing)? I use Sygate along with a $29.95 4-port plus 1 BNC hub, and it works like a charm. Randy

To: D. Newberry who wrote (89761)	10/9/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Re: "how I solved the multiple PC problem." Hi DN, great post! You have a lot of networking knowledge. Glad to have you join the Intel thread. Intel is increasingly becoming a network company. A couple of comments: RE: "If set up correctly, users on the outside cannot address any of your internal PCs... This solves the classic security problem you have with an always on connection." This is what some of my friends did who have multiple PCs. But, for those who don't have multiple PCs, I suppose a person could go to control panel->network->tcp-ip->bindings and disable "Netbios over TCP-IP" as an extra security measure (to turn off disk sharing with the general Internet community) and I believe a single PC machine these days may be blocked when using some of the newer cable or DSL modems as well. I can relate to your AOL messenger comment. I know some folks who made a similar configuration because of the "must have" AOL messenger application. Your comment about the PC never locking up is hilarious. RE: "Router: ...once set up you can basically forget about it. I just about went that route, until I discovered a problem. I have users in the house that love AOL instant messenger and ICQ. These services will not work through a traditional firewall or router. The reason is, they are a security problem. ICQ, for example, starts a session with an outgoing UDP port #2000, then opens all TCP incoming ports and listens for any incoming messages. A traditional router or firewall will not permit that. I hate the technology and wished AOL would not design apps like this, but to keep peace in the house I had to find a solution that would accommodate these applications. Also, you have to assume that other forthcoming applications, like video and voice conferencing, will invariably have the same problem." Yes, UDP packets are pretty much wildcards, and services which use them have had a heck of a time going through firewalls, so that some of the popular ones finally gave up and put in a non-UDP mode using a TCP connection that looks like access to a web server, which manages to get it through a firewall. I enjoyed your post. Hope to see more of them on the Intel thread. Regards, Amy J