One Doubt on the UNLIMITED scheme

[sarahpinto]

Hello,I am new here,a Bangalorean...Actually TataIndicom BB has a new scheme (for Post Paid ) which was added in November - > "Unlimited - New Infinity 256" ( 256 kbps )...previously they had only 64 and 128 kbps for unlimited schemes.Suppose if I take this type of connection i.e New Infinity 256....Can I SHARE the Net connection for 5 computers i.e what I mean to say is....Will those Unlimited 64/128/256 schemes allow SHARING of internet over the network?(we all know, they give conn. to ONE system)By the way, anyone using those unlimited schemes? If yes, can you share it over your network? And how will be the download speed for each computer?

 

[hitman]

Yup u can share internet over ur network. If u have router than it will be easy for u . U can share net by using dhcp. If u have usb modem than i suppose u will need a lan card if u want to share internet.

 

[max]

Speed will be equally divided. And Airtel need not know that you are sharing the connections .

 

[sarahpinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 07:19 PM
Yup u can share internet over ur network.


I know we can share internet over a network but my main worry was whether that 'New Infinity 256' allows sharing or is sharing not allowed in that scheme.....

by the way, right now I hv the Volume based scheme...2GB free.....and i want to change over...

and if i go for Infinity 256...if Network sharing is possible( this is important)..how much will each system get....256 divided by 5 = 51 kbps

 

[cyrux]

There is nothing that sharing is allowed or not....if u want do it urself but the point is your speeds are goind to be divided. If you have a volume based plan its really going to be a pain so switching to a UL plan shall suit

 

[sarahpinto]

Oh..If the speeds are gonna get divided for a 256kbps connection for over 5 computers... ..then is it a good option for our office.....if it takes ages to open up mails, web sites then all our work would go for a toss.....coz right now ours is 512 kbps....it takes a couple of seconds to open yahoo/rediff etc on the client system...Now I wonder how much of minutes the same thing will take to open (on a client system) with a 256kbps conn. on the server system? Any guesses...

 

---

[Sushubh]

the bandwidth is used if all the five computers are using the net. it does not divide automatically. 512 is good enough for regular surfing on a small number of computer. just avoid downloading big files when many users are simultaneously online.

 

[max]

its best to add traffic shaping so irrespective of the number of computers using the net, each computer is going to get only a specific amount of bandwidth.

 

[Sushubh]

but u waste bandwidth if their are not enough users using the other computers.

 

[sarahpinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:46 PM
512 is good enough for regular surfing on a small number of computer.


so then..what about 256...is it good for normal surfing, mail checking on 5-6 computers or do we hv to wait for ages to check mails, open sites etc

 

[Sushubh]

256 for 5 computers at one time... would work but not very nice. 512 for 5 comes to around 100 kbps for each which is better than modem speeds.

 

[sarahpinto]

Actually the trouble i am facing is...since Net shd always be connected, some of our employees are downloading audio/video and hence i am getting a fat bill...is there any FREEWARE s/w for download which denies the download of audio/video clips...my friend specified me some CYBERPATROL but that is a trial version

 

[max]

you can setup a linux server with Squid proxy server. It is great for control freaks like me. Some of the very useful features are:1. Website censoring (Blacklist or Whitelist)2. Content censoring (not allowing people to download Audio / Video files and .EXEs etc...).3. Exensive Logging4. Authentication based access5. Restricting usage between specific hours.

 

[Savant]

It is true that your 256Kbps will be divided among the computers, but the key is each computer will only pull as much as it needs.It doesn't mean that each of the computers will get 51Kbps. You might have one computer downloading an iso (cd image, about 700Mb) at a 100Kbps, and then the other 4 computers just doing pure html webbrowsing, and no one will know the difference. Especially since all 4 computers won't be pulling browsing at the exact same time. One person will click, and start reading, and then another, etc, they're not going to be sync'd.Also, if you share or not, it will be transparent to the ISP, they can't tell, since the sharing scheme you're using is likely a NAT (network address translation). From your side, your computer sends all requests to the NAT box, and the box sends back to you whatever you requested. From the ISP's point of view, they only see the NAT box making requests and all incoming stuff goes to the NAT. The NAT box keeps track of what computer requested what, and returns the data to that computer. Naturally, it can get very complex, but thats the short version.Either way, sharing seems like a fine idea, depending on what your users are doing. I know that I'm trying to get a similar set up as the one you're talking about. I would have about 7 computers on the network (but probably only half in use at a time), and only one person would be pulling down huge files (me), so I'm aiming for the same.Hope it helped.

 

[max]

Savant, a very fine explanation. Unfortunately it is flawed. The ISP can definitely make out if you are using multiple computers or not. It's not possible for Windoze users to avoid but Linux users can easily patch their kernel and avoid detection!