Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:49:18AM -0400, Thomas wrote:
>          Here's a related question: if you wanted use a wireless
> network and share your DSL/cable net connection, would you still
> have to buy an NAT switch to do so?

Depends.

I have my cable modem plugged directly into my Airport via CatV patch
cord. The Airport base station acts as a NAT router anyway, so it's all
good. If you want to split between wired and wireless, you can plug the
cable mode/DSL rj45 into a hub, plug other machines into the hub, and
plug the Airport into the hub as well, but you'd either need multiple
IPs from the cable/DSL provider or a NAT router (hardware or software)
in between the original cable/DSL drop and the hub - this is how I had
things set up at the old apartment: cable to Win2K box doing NAT, catV
through the attic from other side of duplex ;) and thence into a hub
into which I plugged the Airport and my iMac. Wireless-enabled devices
got two levels of NAT (one from cable->Win2K->hub and one from Airport
to laptops). Worked fine, but it was a bit weird, especially when the
Win2K box had to be rebooted.

So, if you want to have multiple live IPs on the cable side of the NAT,
yes, you'd need a NAT router. If not, or if you just want to do everything
via wireless, then, no - the base station gives you all you need.

S

-- 
"Euphoria is not a business strategy" -- Louis Rossetto