Jump to content

Internet on PS3

raza

By raza
in Hardware Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts


ripken204

ripken204

Posted
Posted

i was confused about that too. i was trying to set it up one day with my xbox and i just couldnt get it to work. so i googled and came across a forum and it said that i should call my isp to see if they supported it... so i did. and they immediatly said that they do not support ICS. i was thinking the same as you guys, like how is this an isp problem, isnt it only a windows problem? but i dont know, thats all that they told me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

Posted
Posted
Have you tried using it to share access with other computers though? I used ICS a loooooong time ago (as well as RRAS in 2000) and I can tell you that opening ports and getting them to work properly is a PITA.

While I don't recall having issues with opening ports in ICS (haven't tried that in a while, so perhaps I just don't remember -- or did I just chose to forget the horrible memories?) I can certainly attest to ICS being a PITA. Very often after running the config wizard the "client" PC gets stuck at the DHCP stage. I've never bothered to see if it's just too braindead to accept one, or if it's the machine doing the sharing/NAT that's too stupid to hand one out when asked (likely this one). But the client is stuck on 169.254.x.x for forever -- until you fix it. Eventually you get it working, but it's always a pain.

Once it finally gets an IP (required to see the other PCs), then I've never seen it have problems with "connecting to internet". I don't remember a single instance where one couldn't get to the internet through it (unless a particular app needs one port open and it's not). Not sure about xbox'es (I got one, but it's never been on the net)

As for RRAS, I've never had any troubles with it (that's what I'm currently using). Opening ports is simple and it works all the time. Sufficient/secure enough for me and it has all the features I really need (i.e. I can VPN through it no problem too). But it's not part of XP, so not an option here.

Even if some think ICS sucks (I'm not saying they're not wrong), why not try it anyways? It'll take about 15 minutes to set it up (10 minutes of that being troubleshooting/fighting with the braindead DHCP server). No 3rd party software to install or anything. Totally free, nothing to buy or whatever. Just a few minutes of his time. Pretty easy to use too, even for the "networking-challenged". It's worth a try.

And if that doesn't work, then try to get a non-USB modem (preferably one with no ghetto router in it), threaten your ISP to leave or something. I know I wouldn't ever use a modem w/o a plain old RJ45. And if that fails too, then you're basically stuck looking for 3rd party NAT/internet sharing software (often commercial, and often sucks as bad or worse than ICS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nmX.Memnoch

nmX.Memnoch

Posted
Posted (edited)
[(10 minutes of that being troubleshooting/fighting with the braindead DHCP server)
That's because there is no DHCP server with ICS. :)

The 169.254.x.x series of IPs is what XP uses when it's set to DHCP but no DHCP server is available on the network. With ICS you have to use static IPs on all of your machines (with the .1 address on the ICS host/gateway). That'll reduce A LOT of the wait time. :)

Edited by nmX.Memnoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

Posted
Posted
That's because there is no DHCP server with ICS. :)

Wrong. The computer sharing the connection also serves as a DHCP server for all the computers connecting thru it. And it works... Like half the time. If there was no DHCP server, it wouldn't ever work -- at all (unless you manually setup static IPs, which you don't have to -- even the ICS wizard sets up the clients to ask for one). The DHCP Allocator is part of the NAT/Basic Firewall service (there's also registry entries for the settings and all). Don't believe me? Try running netstat a ICS host, and you should see it listening on :BootPC and :BootPS or something similar.

The 169.254.x.x series of IPs is what XP uses when it's set to DHCP but no DHCP server is available on the network.

It's using an APIPA address (from 169.254.0.1 to 169.254.255.254, B class, subnet mask 255.255.0.0 i.e. 169.254.0.0/16). Always happens when DHCP doesn't work (it's the best way to find out if it worked). No surprises here. I'm just saying that ICS' DHCP server sucks/is unreliable, that's all. That's the main issue with it as far as I've noticed (other than that it's not nearly as bad as most people tend to put it).

With ICS you have to use static IPs on all of your machines

No you don't have to. You can (and I tend to, because the DHCP server sucks). But most of the time it'll work fine (it's just the initial setup that seems problematic). It's not like they expect end-users/home users to go around and start assigning static IPs (and then wonder why it doesn't work when they plug elsewhere and all). There's no reason to... Besides ICS' DHCP server being brain dead I mean.

My point was, it's not nearly as bad as most people put it, besides the DHCP server issues. He can spend the 15 minutes to fight with it, and see if it works for him. Total cost 0$. There's just no reason not to try it, especially when you look at the other options, either:

-another modem. Likely costly, if even possible, or

-3rd party software. That would most likely be expensive, heavier and more complicated (like Kerio WinRoute Firewall at 400$), and sometimes no better than ICS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nmX.Memnoch

nmX.Memnoch

Posted
Posted
That's because there is no DHCP server with ICS. :)

Wrong. The computer sharing the connection also serves as a DHCP server for all the computers connecting thru it.

I stand corrected...the last time I used ICS was on Win98 SE. :)

I did some quick reading and it's a very basic DHCP server (not much else required other than an IP, submask and the gateway anyway, though). Although I still tend to think that in that situation it's still better to use static IPs. Mainly in such a case that if your ICS machine just happens to be off and you fire up another machine that happens to take the .1 address.

ICS will work in a pinch...no doubt there. But given the option I'd much rather use a cable/DSL router. Just my 2 cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
raza

raza

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

So is there any way to increase the speed?I have netlimiter it can grant and limit speeds to different softwares but I can't find any way for lan.Plz help.

So ppl can I??Plz???

Edited by raza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...