I see what you're saying.
OK. That would preclude the other idea if the requirement is to run specific Windows applications. Otherwise a Linux or BSD server with appropriate application and VNC would achieve a similar mechanism.
Another option would be to put a commercial VPN server package on the Win2k3 machine and then to restrict access from the internet to only being the port that it uses - i.e. a simple ACL on the router.
Very specific windows only app (and very creaky in its coding as well - like it is hard coded to use a specific directory on the C:\ drive for its DB files!)
Not sure what that would give me over and above using RAS to handle the VPN on the server. Obviously we will implement more security on the router as well (possibly having a packet filter in the firewall limiting access to the forwarded port to predefined IP source addresses etc).
Oh dear. Does it have code (e.g. record locking) to prevent simultaneous users accessing the data from screwing up the database?
A level of reliability beyond RAS. It's possible that this has been improved in Win2k3, but I tried it for a while on Win2k and it was distinctly flakey - memory leaks, connections dropping, failure to connect reliably,...
Not quite that bad ;-) It has a "server mode" that is fully network aware... the problem is when running in client mode - it uses a bunch of small .exes it uses to locate and find third party apps it integrates with. Some of these are hard coded and don't support the concept of sharing. Not usually a problem on a workstation with only one user, but gets interesting on a terminal services session.
2k3 is better in this respect IIUC. They have also beefed up the security inherent in the terminal services / remote desktop code such that you can in theory run it without a VPN since it includes the option for native equivalent strength encryption. Having said all that I would still prefer a hardware terminated VPN outside of the windows box.I am just looking into doing this at home, too. As an aside, I have heard that the plug-in units don't work if they are on different ring mains. Do you know if yours works on same or separate rings?
(Quick lelurk) Quoting a bit of context would help with understanding your question but my two homeplugs are on different rings and work fine. In fact, thinking about it, they are on different consumer units.
Hmm, I wonder if that means other people on the street could access my network? Perhaps I ought to get around to having a look at the security options available.
Possibly not quite as easly open as a wireless network as the person concerned would have to plugged into the mains. I suspect they would also have to be on the same phase as you. I wonder how far away they could be though, next door, across the road, end of the street?
I am picking up X10 signals from someone else in the street. They aren't strong enough to trigger my own X10 devices, but they are detected by my X10 computer interface.
OK, here's a bit more context. I have an big old house, so all walls are solid brick. Where I would site the main pc and network router is about 20 metres, three walls and one floor away from where I'd like to use a laptop. Reseaching the options has left me with the impression that a wireless network would struggle under those conditions. As an alternative there are these plug-in units working through the mains cabling. However, Netgear's description of their WGXB102, for instance, says they should be on the same ring. I have been told elsewhere that performance on separate rings is not good, maybe impossible, if the consumer unit is fitted with MCBs, which mine is.
I don't know how these things actually work but if they send their signal onto the live side of the cabling I'd expect there to be no problem for different rings on circuits with fuses, but having to pass through MBCs to make the connection degrades the signal considerably, apparently.
Mine certainly struggled under less arduous conditions.
I've got wired fuses in all of mine which would explain why I didn't get any problems. OTOH, you can pick up a pair of homeplugs in ebay pretty cheaply so might be worth experimenting. May be you can use the homeplug to site the network router somewhere better?
That doesn't surprise me MCBs have coils in them to operate the magnetic (fast) trip side of the mechanism. RF frequencies don't pass through coils very well.
With 3 walls between the laptop and access point I'd not expect brilliant preformance, if any. Could you place the AP in the room above the one you want to use the laptop in so it only has a (timber?) floor to pass through.
I would strongly suggest investigating running some cat 5.
If any other piece of wire connects the two areas the mains stuff would probably work, or pair of DSL bridges.
In general the easiest way to run cables between rooms in a property like this is through the loft, down the outside of the walls and in through a windows frame, or the brick if its solid.
Often the runs can be tucked behind guttering pipe to reduce visual impact, or a neat piece of pseudo downpipe used as a conduit.
Cat 5 may be old hat, but terminated properly its rock solid.
I've considerd that, but it would be difficult. The area I want to reach is a single storey extension so access is limited (and no room needs re-decorating). And it's got its own ring main, hence the original question. I don't think I'm going to find an easy solution.
Yes, that's an option I'm considering. Then it's either the plug-in unit or a range extender (which I've heard are a bugger to get working).
Good idea. I'll be back in a couple of months as an expert!
Just get a PoE capable AP and dangle it off the end of a bit of CAT5 in a suitable place. No need to mains at the AP position then, which makes siting it much easier. Range extenders half your through put as only one radio can "talk" at anyone time.
Tell you what..linking all your lives ..or at least te trow rings in question - at the busbar with small 400v capacitors might enable you to use the mains even with MCB's in series..
Good thought. I had assumed that maybe mcbs have some kind of rf choke built in to them, and if so this is a nice idea.
They do in effect, the magnetic operating coil.
It sounds decidedly dodgey to fit capacitors between the lives of the rings concerned. What about the leakage to a circuit that is supposedly "off" via it's MCB? What happens when the C fails to short circuit?
Slightly better to fit a C across each MCB but I'm not comfortable with that either. A contact supressor R & C snubber network is a much better idea than a straight C. SOmething similar to RS 616-7682 prehaps, donno if that would let enough of the RF through though.
I have a pair of Netgear HDX101s, one in the house and one in the detached garage. The signal passes through two MCBs in the house and another in the garage. The HDX101 at the garage is plugged into an extension lead instead of the recommended wall socket. I get at least 43 Mbps, which, although (inevitably) much less than the rated 200 Mbps, I suspect it would be hard to beat with a wireless connection.
There was a group test in PC Pro recently and my Netgears came out worst of the three types, so it might well be possible to do much better. Best was the Devolo dLan 200.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.