If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
I was looking at one of these:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...fsIINQdaYLM%3A It would sit on/next to the TV. I already have one of these on the den TV and connected to the network: http://store.digitalriver.com/store?...eID=301531 00 I was thinking it sure would be nice if the Slingbox or the WDTV had an extra Ethernet port. My bedroom TV does have Ethernet port, but I don't use it. I do have a WDTV at the bedroom TV connected to the network. I can see a time in the near future where it is going to be everything with a power cord is going to need an Ethernet port. It seems like it's time to plan for this. I don't see much more cost in adding two Ethernet ports to devices so you could just keep daisy chaining things together. I know that would cause each device to share the bandwidth, but anytime that would be a problem you could always add another line. It would seem that the only catch is how IP ports get assigned. 192.168.1.130:1 192.168.1.130:2 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
Metspitzer wrote:
I was looking at one of these: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...fsIINQdaYLM%3A It would sit on/next to the TV. I already have one of these on the den TV and connected to the network: http://store.digitalriver.com/store?...eID=301531 00 I was thinking it sure would be nice if the Slingbox or the WDTV had an extra Ethernet port. My bedroom TV does have Ethernet port, but I don't use it. I do have a WDTV at the bedroom TV connected to the network. I can see a time in the near future where it is going to be everything with a power cord is going to need an Ethernet port. It seems like it's time to plan for this. I don't see much more cost in adding two Ethernet ports to devices so you could just keep daisy chaining things together. I know that would cause each device to share the bandwidth, but anytime that would be a problem you could always add another line. It would seem that the only catch is how IP ports get assigned. 192.168.1.130:1 192.168.1.130:2 192.168.x.x is a NAT address. It's on the LAN side of your router, and is un-routable. If I'm sitting here right now, and I type 192.168.1.130, I don't see *your* computer. We're insulated from one another. These are "private" addresses, only visible on the home subnet. So you're not going to run out of those. But that's in n IPV4 world (and the four parts to the address, tell you I'm addressing an IPV4 world 192.168.x.x). Some day, IPV6 will prevail (much wider addresses), and then there will be plenty of addresses. You won't necessarily see NAT in the picture then, and every device could be addressed from the Internet. By using routers and firewalls, there will be ways to stop that, so local IPV6 addresses are protected from the Internet. NAT was intended as a workaround (for the shortage of addresses in IPV4, but it's a sort of "default firewall" right now. The reason OSes have their own internal software firewall, is planning for a day and an environment, where there is no long a private LAN to be expected (one protected by NAT at the router). I don't understand your "192.168.1.130:1", and I must have missed that in my random readings on TCP/IP. It implies some kind of sub-address. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:43:49 -0400, Paul wrote:
Metspitzer wrote: I was looking at one of these: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...fsIINQdaYLM%3A It would sit on/next to the TV. I already have one of these on the den TV and connected to the network: http://store.digitalriver.com/store?...eID=301531 00 I was thinking it sure would be nice if the Slingbox or the WDTV had an extra Ethernet port. My bedroom TV does have Ethernet port, but I don't use it. I do have a WDTV at the bedroom TV connected to the network. I can see a time in the near future where it is going to be everything with a power cord is going to need an Ethernet port. It seems like it's time to plan for this. I don't see much more cost in adding two Ethernet ports to devices so you could just keep daisy chaining things together. I know that would cause each device to share the bandwidth, but anytime that would be a problem you could always add another line. It would seem that the only catch is how IP ports get assigned. 192.168.1.130:1 192.168.1.130:2 192.168.x.x is a NAT address. It's on the LAN side of your router, and is un-routable. If I'm sitting here right now, and I type 192.168.1.130, I don't see *your* computer. We're insulated from one another. These are "private" addresses, only visible on the home subnet. So you're not going to run out of those. But that's in n IPV4 world (and the four parts to the address, tell you I'm addressing an IPV4 world 192.168.x.x). Some day, IPV6 will prevail (much wider addresses), and then there will be plenty of addresses. You won't necessarily see NAT in the picture then, and every device could be addressed from the Internet. By using routers and firewalls, there will be ways to stop that, so local IPV6 addresses are protected from the Internet. NAT was intended as a workaround (for the shortage of addresses in IPV4, but it's a sort of "default firewall" right now. The reason OSes have their own internal software firewall, is planning for a day and an environment, where there is no long a private LAN to be expected (one protected by NAT at the router). I don't understand your "192.168.1.130:1", and I must have missed that in my random readings on TCP/IP. It implies some kind of sub-address. Paul I was just asking what you would have to happen if devices did come with two Ethernet ports that could be used to daisy chain devices? What kind of address could they have to allow two (or more) devices on one CAT 5 feed? The 192.168.1.130:1 was just my way of asking if devices could work as a daisy chain? Also I incorrectly called it an IP address. I was thinking NAT address. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
Metspitzer wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:43:49 -0400, Paul wrote: Metspitzer wrote: I was looking at one of these: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...fsIINQdaYLM%3A It would sit on/next to the TV. I already have one of these on the den TV and connected to the network: http://store.digitalriver.com/store?...eID=301531 00 I was thinking it sure would be nice if the Slingbox or the WDTV had an extra Ethernet port. My bedroom TV does have Ethernet port, but I don't use it. I do have a WDTV at the bedroom TV connected to the network. I can see a time in the near future where it is going to be everything with a power cord is going to need an Ethernet port. It seems like it's time to plan for this. I don't see much more cost in adding two Ethernet ports to devices so you could just keep daisy chaining things together. I know that would cause each device to share the bandwidth, but anytime that would be a problem you could always add another line. It would seem that the only catch is how IP ports get assigned. 192.168.1.130:1 192.168.1.130:2 192.168.x.x is a NAT address. It's on the LAN side of your router, and is un-routable. If I'm sitting here right now, and I type 192.168.1.130, I don't see *your* computer. We're insulated from one another. These are "private" addresses, only visible on the home subnet. So you're not going to run out of those. But that's in n IPV4 world (and the four parts to the address, tell you I'm addressing an IPV4 world 192.168.x.x). Some day, IPV6 will prevail (much wider addresses), and then there will be plenty of addresses. You won't necessarily see NAT in the picture then, and every device could be addressed from the Internet. By using routers and firewalls, there will be ways to stop that, so local IPV6 addresses are protected from the Internet. NAT was intended as a workaround (for the shortage of addresses in IPV4, but it's a sort of "default firewall" right now. The reason OSes have their own internal software firewall, is planning for a day and an environment, where there is no long a private LAN to be expected (one protected by NAT at the router). I don't understand your "192.168.1.130:1", and I must have missed that in my random readings on TCP/IP. It implies some kind of sub-address. Paul I was just asking what you would have to happen if devices did come with two Ethernet ports that could be used to daisy chain devices? What kind of address could they have to allow two (or more) devices on one CAT 5 feed? The 192.168.1.130:1 was just my way of asking if devices could work as a daisy chain? Also I incorrectly called it an IP address. I was thinking NAT address. They're all IP addresses, for Internet Protocol. We could do this, and no network translation is implied here. All the addresses are routable. I can see your machine, at metspitzer.com and you can see mine at paul.com (or some bogus domain we registered): Metspitzer ---- home ----- teh Internets ----- home ---- Paul 203.17.26.44 router router 123.77.66.55 If we turn on NAT on the routers, the LAN side can be made private, and the router converts 192.168.1.3 to 203.17.26.44. And on my side, converts internal 192.168.23.44 to 123.7.66.55. How this saves addresses, is the addresses on the home LAN (192.168.xx) cannot be seen from the Internet. As far as the Internet is concerned, there is just one device at 203.17.26.44 (and that's your router). You can ping the modem/router box. But you cannot ping any of Metspitzer's vast collection of Ethernet PCs. 203.17.26.44 123.77.66.55 Metspitzer ---- home ----- teh Internets ----- home ---- Paul 192.168.1.3 router router 192.168.23.44 NAT NAT As far as I know, NAT won't be necessary in an IPV6 world, so we could go back to the previous scheme. But there are probably lots of reasons, for not doing that, and for implementing something that firewalls off the Internet from the living room TV set. We don't particularly want that (me pinging your TV set). NAT, originally intended as an address conservation scheme, also happens to make a handy stateful firewall. And we may still want firewalls and barriers, to keep the "hordes" out. (Like that idiot who hacked some person's wireless baby monitor IP camera, and tried to wake the child by talking through the speaker on the thing.) In addition to pure IPV4, pure IPV6, there are also schemes for mixing them. Your OS may have a copy of "6to4" for example, which is a means of working between the two worlds. If you take a look at the occasional computer you put together, with some other OS on it, you may notice some of these bits and pieces that were added to prepare the computer for IPV6. My few experiments here with IPV6, I find it too "chatty". I use the LED indicators on the LAN interfaces here, as an indication of "shady activity". If I'm not doing anything, the browsers are shut down, my LAN is quiet enough, I hardly ever see LEDs flashing. But it's possible to turn on all sorts of stuff, to the point the LED is quite busy. And then you can no longer rely on the LED as an indication that "somebody is knocking at my door". Where I sit here, if I'm getting scanned too often, I drop the IP address, and get a new lease over ADSL. If I find an address where the LEDs on my network boxes aren't flashing, then I'm good for a while. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
On 17/08/2013 5:43 PM, Paul wrote:
192.168.x.x is a NAT address. It's on the LAN side of your router, and is un-routable. If I'm sitting here right now, and I type 192.168.1.130, I don't see *your* computer. We're insulated from one another. These are "private" addresses, only visible on the home subnet. So you're not going to run out of those. But that's in n IPV4 world (and the four parts to the address, tell you I'm addressing an IPV4 world 192.168.x.x). Some day, IPV6 will prevail (much wider addresses), and then there will be plenty of addresses. You won't necessarily see NAT in the picture then, and every device could be addressed from the Internet. By using routers and firewalls, there will be ways to stop that, so local IPV6 addresses are protected from the Internet. There will still be a sort of NAT with IPV6. With IPV6, a device's MAC address will form it's automatically assigned private address. You won't need DHCP or DNS to get an automatic private address, as it will be formed directly from the MAC address. These addresses will be unroutable though, so you will only be able to use them within a private LAN, just like NAT addresses in IPV4. In IPV6, private addresses are called Unique Local Addressing (ULA). All IPV6 private addresses will start with the hexadecimal number 0xfd... (fdxx:xxxx:xxxx). In IPV4, the reason you need to the specially assigned NAT addresses and you need things like DHCP to assign them is because the IP addresses (32-bit) are smaller than the MAC addresses (48-bit), so you can't form an IP address based on the MAC address. But in IPV6, the MAC addresses are much smaller than the IP addresses (128-bit), so MAC addresses can become a subset of the IP addresses. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...vate-addresses NAT was intended as a workaround (for the shortage of addresses in IPV4, but it's a sort of "default firewall" right now. The reason OSes have their own internal software firewall, is planning for a day and an environment, where there is no long a private LAN to be expected (one protected by NAT at the router). Actually routable IPV6 addresses will still need to be assigned by DHCP and DNS servers. ULA addresses may be automatic, but they are unroutable, so routable addresses will need to be assigned through formal negotiated procedures. The routable addresses will not have anything to do with the MAC addresses, so devices will potentially have two IPV6 addresses on the same interface, an assigned one, and an automatic ULA one. But it's likely that people in a large organization will not bother to obtain assigned addresses for every little device that works on their network, and obtain only a few addresses for their routers which will then redirect traffic between the LAN and the WAN. I don't understand your "192.168.1.130:1", and I must have missed that in my random readings on TCP/IP. It implies some kind of sub-address. Yeah, the x.x.x.x:y where the x represents the IPv4 address, and y represent a port number. Yousuf Khan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
On 17/08/2013 7:19 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
I was just asking what you would have to happen if devices did come with two Ethernet ports that could be used to daisy chain devices? What kind of address could they have to allow two (or more) devices on one CAT 5 feed? The 192.168.1.130:1 was just my way of asking if devices could work as a daisy chain? Why would you need that? Ethernet was originally a bus architecture, meaning multiple devices shared the same piece of wire between them. Yes, it resulted in data collisions between the devices if they didn't get their timings right, but there were mechanisms for handling that too. Eventually modern Ethernet evolved into a star architecture, with a central hub (actually a switch) managing all of the traffic from various devices, and each device was given its own unique piece of wire to the hub, not shared with any other device. However, when push comes to shove, you can still make devices share the same physical wire, even if they have separate IP addresses. The mechanism for managing collisions in Ethernet still exist, so that means the mechanism for sharing the wire still exists. Also I incorrectly called it an IP address. I was thinking NAT address. A NAT address is also an IP address, just a private one, that's all. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/08/2013 5:43 PM, Paul wrote: 192.168.x.x is a NAT address. It's on the LAN side of your router, and is un-routable. If I'm sitting here right now, and I type 192.168.1.130, I don't see *your* computer. We're insulated from one another. These are "private" addresses, only visible on the home subnet. So you're not going to run out of those. But that's in n IPV4 world (and the four parts to the address, tell you I'm addressing an IPV4 world 192.168.x.x). Some day, IPV6 will prevail (much wider addresses), and then there will be plenty of addresses. You won't necessarily see NAT in the picture then, and every device could be addressed from the Internet. By using routers and firewalls, there will be ways to stop that, so local IPV6 addresses are protected from the Internet. There will still be a sort of NAT with IPV6. With IPV6, a device's MAC address will form it's automatically assigned private address. You won't need DHCP or DNS to get an automatic private address, as it will be formed directly from the MAC address. These addresses will be unroutable though, so you will only be able to use them within a private LAN, just like NAT addresses in IPV4. In IPV6, private addresses are called Unique Local Addressing (ULA). All IPV6 private addresses will start with the hexadecimal number 0xfd... (fdxx:xxxx:xxxx). In IPV4, the reason you need to the specially assigned NAT addresses and you need things like DHCP to assign them is because the IP addresses (32-bit) are smaller than the MAC addresses (48-bit), so you can't form an IP address based on the MAC address. But in IPV6, the MAC addresses are much smaller than the IP addresses (128-bit), so MAC addresses can become a subset of the IP addresses. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...vate-addresses NAT was intended as a workaround (for the shortage of addresses in IPV4, but it's a sort of "default firewall" right now. The reason OSes have their own internal software firewall, is planning for a day and an environment, where there is no long a private LAN to be expected (one protected by NAT at the router). Actually routable IPV6 addresses will still need to be assigned by DHCP and DNS servers. ULA addresses may be automatic, but they are unroutable, so routable addresses will need to be assigned through formal negotiated procedures. The routable addresses will not have anything to do with the MAC addresses, so devices will potentially have two IPV6 addresses on the same interface, an assigned one, and an automatic ULA one. But it's likely that people in a large organization will not bother to obtain assigned addresses for every little device that works on their network, and obtain only a few addresses for their routers which will then redirect traffic between the LAN and the WAN. I don't understand your "192.168.1.130:1", and I must have missed that in my random readings on TCP/IP. It implies some kind of sub-address. Yeah, the x.x.x.x:y where the x represents the IPv4 address, and y represent a port number. Yousuf Khan Maybe I would have tweaked to the port number, if it was one of the higher ones than "1" :-) Like maybe 192.168.1.130:80 or even 192.168.1.130:8080 would have gotten my attention. The lowest value that is also popular is probably :21 for FTP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P_port_numbers The usage of :1 and :2 implied enumeration, and perhaps that's why I didn't recognize it as such. As for the IPV6, I thought there was a push on a while back, to get it deployed, but I haven't seen anything from my ISP. I still don't seem to be forced to use it. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple IP addresses on one line
On 18/08/2013 5:13 AM, Paul wrote:
Maybe I would have tweaked to the port number, if it was one of the higher ones than "1" :-) Like maybe 192.168.1.130:80 or even 192.168.1.130:8080 would have gotten my attention. The lowest value that is also popular is probably :21 for FTP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P_port_numbers The usage of :1 and :2 implied enumeration, and perhaps that's why I didn't recognize it as such. Yup, and let's not forget Port 7, the Echo protocol, isn't that what's used to ping servers? As for the IPV6, I thought there was a push on a while back, to get it deployed, but I haven't seen anything from my ISP. I still don't seem to be forced to use it. I don't know how it's going to work. At some point it's going to get really critical to upgrade. Right now a lot of work is being done by private nets, even on the server side. So there need to upgrade is not urgent yet. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
book gr guest levitra site cheap org diflucan line online linklevitra prescription on line | [email protected] | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | March 27th 08 09:44 AM |
DHCP Server Leasing Addresses to MAC Addresses of 00-00-00-00-00-00 | nomorespameventhoughthejapanesespamgivesmeachuckle | General | 4 | December 7th 06 04:24 AM |
Multiple screens, multiple accounts and desktop icons | André Gulliksen | Ati Videocards | 1 | January 13th 05 05:53 AM |
ip addresses | Squibbly | Homebuilt PC's | 6 | April 23rd 04 06:34 PM |
multiple cams viewed by multiple clients question | L.Coates | Webcams | 1 | February 9th 04 06:43 AM |