Thanks for your help. I think you've convinced me that the best thing to do
is push the client to change the network configuration so we can use ICS.
Thanks again.
"AmericanTechie" wrote:
> Mike Kenworthy wrote:
> > This is not so much a problem for me as it is a client's configuration. The
> > card where I would need to enable ICS gets its address from a wireless
> > router's DHCP pool. It will be a chore to rework this configuration to
> > support the ICS adapter.
> >
> > "AmericanTechie" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mike Kenworthy wrote:
> >>
> >>>My situation is I have two network cards. I want to forward packets coming in
> >>>on one of the cards to a host and port accessible through the other card. I
> >>>do not want to turn on ICS because it forces me to use a particular IP
> >>>address on the card. Is there any way other than ICS in xp to do port
> >>>forwarding. I've tried netsh routing ip nat add portmapping but it doesn't
> >>>work. Does ICS or something else need to be turned on for that to work? If I
> >>>am successful with whatever method should I see the port listening if I do a
> >>>netstat -an
> >>
> >>Just a question for you. What is the problem with being forced to use a
> >>certain IP address when using ICS? I am not a network guru but I cannot
> >>think of a problem with doing it that way. ICS is perfect for this and
> >>the most simple way to do it.
> >>
> >>--
> >>http://www.americantechie.com
> >>
>
> Off the top of my head I don't know of a better situation for your
> network. Part of the reason is I don't know much info about your
> network. Depending on the network setup, ICS might be perfect, in other
> cases of course it may not be ideal. On my network for instance I had
> the following...
>
> Cable Modem => Wireless Router => ICS enabled comp => Hub => Other Computers
>
> Among the "other computers" I had a web server accessible from anywhere.
> You are saying this same setup will not work for your client, so you
> might specify what challenges this setup might bring.
>
> Otherwise I am not sure of anything native in Windows XP that will work
> for what you want to do. Of course there is always third party and
> hardware solutions, but that is probably outside of the scope of this
> newsgroup.
>
> You might give us a little more information as to why you don't want to
> simply use dynamic addressing throughout the network.
>
> --
> http://www.americantechie.com
>