Viewing Thread:
"Creating a WAN"

Basically, I've got two computers here and want to create a direct connection between the two.

I havn't got any network cables and all I got is two ISDN lines!

Is there a way, or a program I can download so that I can make a nice long connection between them?

I want to play Red Alert 2 against the computer next to me, and this is the only way that might work!

Need help quick!

Save me!

Well my ip is "81.86.120.75" so ha

Turbonutter wrote:
> No, it defintely starts at 10.0.0.0

Like I said, you probably know best...

No, it defintely starts at 10.0.0.0

Turbonutter wrote:
> I think it's 10.0.0.1 -10.255.255.255, are you sure?

I thought it was 10.10.10.1 -> 10.10.10.255 but I may be wrong. Thinking about it, what you reckon would allow for bigger networks, although I know our school uses 10.10.10.xxx

I use 192.168.1.1 -> 192.168.1.3 personally, purely because my router came set up to 192.168.1.1 and I cant be bothered changing it..

Nimco wrote:
> Fog wrote:
> why these numbers? can't you use 0.0.0.1 & 0.0.0.2 ?
>
> The idea is that by using an IP address in one of the following
> ranges, you will not have IP conflict problems:
>
> 10.10.10.1 -10.10.10.255

I think it's 10.0.0.1 -> 10.255.255.255, are you sure?

Fog wrote:
> why these numbers? can't you use 0.0.0.1 & 0.0.0.2 ?

The idea is that by using an IP address in one of the following ranges, you will not have IP conflict problems:

10.10.10.1 -> 10.10.10.255
127.0.0.1 -> 127.0.0.255
192.168.0.1 -> 192.168.0.255

The reason is this: all computers on a network (LAN or WAN) have an IP address to identify themselves. If you had two computers with the same IP addresses, when you tried to type in the IP address it would give you an error.

The 3 ranges above are reserved for LAN use and thus do not appear on the Internet.

Fog wrote:
> does seem like a bit ofa waste of time when you could just buy a CAT5
> cable althogh, they're pretty expensive, i'm guessing you could save
> yourself a few pounds by doing it yourself, if your that tight ;)
> or..if you buy the wrong cable to start with :D

£1.95 for 3m, x-over or normal, or £20 in PC world.

Fog wrote:
> or..if you buy the wrong cable to start with :D


Or if you got a network card that came with a free 2 metres of CAT5 :-)

That's a "Class A" iprange (10.0.0.0->10.255.255.255). For a small home network, the theoretical ideal iprange is a Class C (192.0.0.0->253.255.255.255). As you can see they're both large though. The idea is that using a Class C (as AMD_MAN suggested) cuts down on netwokr broadcasts, therefore making the network more efficient. However, I find this benefit is extremely negligible, especially on smaller networks.

To be honest, using the standard 192.168.0.0 iprange is a pain in the bum, and 10.0.0.0 is much easier to remember and type :-)

I would recommend 10.0.0.0, basically because it's easier and quicker to remember/type, and you honestly can't tell the difference. Luke uses 10.0.0.0, and his network is 110% elite :-)