Colin Wilson wrote:

and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones ring out without the
third core)

Other way round - without pin 3 wired (the "ring" line), some phones may
not ring on incoming calls.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

we currently have 2 phone sockets at my folks house: 1 in the front
room downstairs and 1 in the front bedroom upstairs.
the little "master exchange box thingy is in the back bedroom
upstairs, the same room the computer is in.

to date for dialup i had succeeded in merely taking a very long
extension wire from a double-plug in the socket in the master bedroom
across the landing and into the back bedroom [with inevitable curses
when it went bellyup and i had to change it!].

now putting broadband in that house i dont really want to have to do
the same with an RJ11 cable too and wonder how easy it would be to put
a socket-box in that bedroom??

i figure no matter if i use a long RJ11 extension cable or even if i
add another microfilter to the end of the "normal " bt extension cable
into the room the long legth will cause signal degredation....

now putting broadband in that house i dont really want to have to do
the same with an RJ11 cable too and wonder how easy it would be to put
a socket-box in that bedroom??

Easy - hook up the connections numbered 2, 3 and 5 with the same colours,
and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones ring out without the
third core)

You should take the connections at the present master socket from the
seperate plug-in front part, not the back part of the master.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Riz1 wrote:

we currently have 2 phone sockets at my folks house: 1 in the front
room downstairs and 1 in the front bedroom upstairs.
the little "master exchange box thingy is in the back bedroom
upstairs, the same room the computer is in.

to date for dialup i had succeeded in merely taking a very long
extension wire from a double-plug in the socket in the master bedroom
across the landing and into the back bedroom [with inevitable curses
when it went bellyup and i had to change it!].

now putting broadband in that house i dont really want to have to do
the same with an RJ11 cable too and wonder how easy it would be to put
a socket-box in that bedroom??

i figure no matter if i use a long RJ11 extension cable or even if i
add another microfilter to the end of the "normal " bt extension cable
into the room the long legth will cause signal degredation....

Have a look at
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html for
how to wire an extension. You *must* use proper twisted pair telephone cable
though - not any old rubbish if you want good results.

With proper cable you don't have to worry about signal degradation - the
length of your extension is a damn site less than the length of cable coming
fom the exchange to your house!

If you go the normal voice extension route, you can plug your ADSL equipment
into any socket - but you must use microfilters on all sockets which have
analog equipment (phones, faxes, etc.) plugged in.

The alternative - particularly if you don't need a voice connection in the
room with the computer - is to use a filtered faceplate in the master socket
and run a digital extension from that. If you use one of the modified ones
from Clarity http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_bits.htm (and others) you
can krone the extension cable into the *back* of the faceplate rather than
using an RJ11 plug at the front. In that case, use CAT5 cable (although you
only actually need one of the pairs in it) and put an RJ11 socket at the
remote end.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

You *must* use proper twisted pair telephone cable though - not any old
rubbish if you want good results.

I used alarm cable I had knocking around - sound quality is not a problem
on mine, and my broadband uses the same "added" extension.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:36:04 UTC, John Rumm
wrote:


Colin Wilson wrote:


and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones ring out without the
third core)

Other way round - without pin 3 wired (the "ring" line), some phones may
not ring on incoming calls.


That's what he said.

He said "ring out", I was not sure this was particularly clear, hence my
comment.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Set Square wrote:

You also need 3 for a phone which doesn't have its own ring capacitor.

or use a PBX master socket instead of ordinary secondary ones.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Colin Wilson wrote:

You *must* use proper twisted pair telephone cable though - not any
old rubbish if you want good results.

I used alarm cable I had knocking around - sound quality is not a
problem on mine, and my broadband uses the same "added" extension.

Well, ok - you can sometimes get away with it if you're fairly near to the
exchange, with a good strong signal. But I *certainly* wouldn't advise
anyone else to do it that way!
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

"Riz1" wrote in message
om...
we currently have 2 phone sockets at my folks house: 1 in the front
room downstairs and 1 in the front bedroom upstairs.
the little "master exchange box thingy is in the back bedroom
upstairs, the same room the computer is in.

to date for dialup i had succeeded in merely taking a very long
extension wire from a double-plug in the socket in the master bedroom
across the landing and into the back bedroom [with inevitable curses
when it went bellyup and i had to change it!].

now putting broadband in that house i dont really want to have to do
the same with an RJ11 cable too and wonder how easy it would be to put
a socket-box in that bedroom??

i figure no matter if i use a long RJ11 extension cable or even if i
add another microfilter to the end of the "normal " bt extension cable
into the room the long legth will cause signal degredation....

I've got a 15ft extension with microfilter on the end with no problems, a
"temporary" solution until I have time to sort out all the rest of the
wiring.

But if you wish to connect another skt in the bedroom, a master skt wire up
the 2 incoming wires to 2 and 4 would give a working skt

In article ,
Colin Wilson wrote:
ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones ring out without the
third core)

Only approved phones I've come across that don't use the third wire are
cordless types.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

But if you wish to connect another skt in the bedroom, a master skt wire up
the 2 incoming wires to 2 and 4 would give a working skt

Ooer, which one of us is right :-} it`s been a long time since I wired
mine, and I working from a decidedly dodgy memory :-}

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Colin Wilson wrote:

But if you wish to connect another skt in the bedroom, a master skt
wire up the 2 incoming wires to 2 and 4 would give a working skt

Ooer, which one of us is right :-} it`s been a long time since I wired
mine, and I working from a decidedly dodgy memory :-}

The important wires to connect are 2 and 5 - without which nothing will
work. You also need 3 for a phone which doesn't have its own ring capacitor.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:36:04 UTC, John Rumm
wrote:

Colin Wilson wrote:

and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones ring out without the
third core)

Other way round - without pin 3 wired (the "ring" line), some phones may
not ring on incoming calls.

That's what he said.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones ring out without the
third core)
Other way round - without pin 3 wired (the "ring" line), some phones may
not ring on incoming calls.
That's what he said.

When I said third core I wasn`t sure whether it was 2, 3 or 5 that did
the ring on older phones, but at least I know now :-)

I actually meant 2 cores would do the trick, but I wasn`t sure which 2

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:44:32 -0000, "Dave Jones"
wrote:


But if you wish to connect another skt in the bedroom, a master skt wire up
the 2 incoming wires to 2 and 4 would give a working skt

Nope - that would give a most definitely non-working socket :-).


--
Peter Parry WPP Ltd http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:57:23 -0000, Colin Wilson
wrote:


Easy - hook up the connections numbered 2, 3 and 5 with the same colours,
and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could actually do
it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have some really old
telephone equipment

Quite a lot of modern phones require the ringing signal on pin 3 - it
certainly isn't needed just for older equipment.

--
Peter Parry WPP Ltd http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:36:04 UTC, John Rumm
wrote:

Colin Wilson wrote:

and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could
actually do it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have
some really old telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones
ring out without the third core)

Other way round - without pin 3 wired (the "ring" line), some phones
may not ring on incoming calls.

That's what he said.

Not quite! He said the "third may help". The third wire in his list is Pin
5 - which is one of the *essential* connections!
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

now putting broadband in that house i dont really want to have to do
the same with an RJ11 cable too and wonder how easy it would be to put
a socket-box in that bedroom??

One completely different alternative is to use a ADSL modem with wireless
access point router where you already have a socket. Then the computer can
be anywhere in the house and no cables need to be run.

Christian.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:


One completely different alternative is to use a ADSL modem with
wireless access point router where you already have a socket. Then
the computer can be anywhere in the house and no cables need to be
run.

Christian.

It's not a very good alternative, though, for a fixed computer - but fine
for laptops which you might want to use in different parts of the house.

Wireless connections are invariably more temperamental than wired ones, have
additional security issues to be addressed, and it is a bad mistake not to
have at least one PC with a wired connection into the router for
configuration purposes.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

It's not a very good alternative, though, for a fixed computer - but fine
for laptops which you might want to use in different parts of the house.

I find it an excellent solution for my fixed computer. It has changed
location 3 times since I moved in and meant I haven't had to dig holes in
the walls to conceal cables. The cable modem, hub, router and access point
(all old separate units) are in the understairs cupboard. If hardwired
configuration is required, a laptop can be plugged directly to the hub using
a cable.

Christian.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:

It's not a very good alternative, though, for a fixed computer - but
fine for laptops which you might want to use in different parts of
the house.

I find it an excellent solution for my fixed computer. It has changed
location 3 times since I moved in and meant I haven't had to dig
holes in the walls to conceal cables. The cable modem, hub, router
and access point (all old separate units) are in the understairs
cupboard. If hardwired configuration is required, a laptop can be
plugged directly to the hub using a cable.

Christian.

Fine, if you know what you're doing. I hope you have a suitable level of
encryption and MAC address filtering in use to stop all and sundry from
gatecrashing your network?

But, IIRC, the OP had only one computer - which probably isn't readily
portable - in which case, I certainly wouldn't regard wireless as an
obvious - or even suitable - solution.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Fine, if you know what you're doing. I hope you have a suitable level of
encryption and MAC address filtering in use to stop all and sundry from
gatecrashing your network?

Yes. But more importantly, I regard the wireless network to be insecure, so
all the machines have firewalls as well. If you regard the wireless network
itself as no more secure than the internet, then you can't go far wrong.

But, IIRC, the OP had only one computer - which probably isn't readily
portable - in which case, I certainly wouldn't regard wireless as an
obvious - or even suitable - solution.

I see no problem. It doesn't even appear to be his own house, so a solution
that (a) causes less damage and (b) is more portable in the event of moving
out may be appropriate. The amount of time or money to conceal cables may be
a very real issue in some cases. On the other hand, some people don't mind
surface mounted cables ruining the skirting boards.

Christian.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:


Yes. But more importantly, I regard the wireless network to be
insecure, so all the machines have firewalls as well. If you regard
the wireless network itself as no more secure than the internet, then
you can't go far wrong.

But the point is that a wireless network with internet access is a damn site
*less* secure than a wired network with internet access. With a wired
network, no-one can connect to your LAN, other than from the internet - and
the firewall then protects you.

With a wireless network - unless properly secured - hackers within wireless
range of your WAP can get straight into your LAN - and effectively *inside*
the firewall!
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

With a wireless network - unless properly secured - hackers within
wireless
range of your WAP can get straight into your LAN - and effectively
*inside*
the firewall!

You misunderstand. I regard being inside the wireless network as not being a
safe place. OK, it has WEP (ha ha!) security, MAC address limitation and a
firewall to the internet, but I don't rely on that. The individual computers
connected have firewall settings (either Norton or XP SP2) that are
appropriate for the computer's direct connection to the Internet as if the
wireless network was not protected at all.

Breaking into my wireless network would get you a free Internet connection
if NTL ever deign to provide any service, but won't allow you to access the
computers within.

Christian.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:27:22 UTC, "Set Square" wrote:

and you`re good to go, 2-red 3-blue 5-black. ISTR you could
actually do it with 2 cores, but the third may help if you have
some really old telephone equipment (I don`t think some old phones
ring out without the third core)

Other way round - without pin 3 wired (the "ring" line), some phones
may not ring on incoming calls.

That's what he said.

Not quite! He said the "third may help". The third wire in his list is Pin
5 - which is one of the *essential* connections!

Yes, I guess if you interpret 'third' like that...I just assumed the
third wire was the bell wire..

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:


Breaking into my wireless network would get you a free Internet
connection if NTL ever deign to provide any service, but won't allow
you to access the computers within.

Christian.

That may be true in your particular case - but it certainly isn't true in
the general case.

People in this situation will normally have File & Printer Sharing enabled -
to enable the PCs on their LAN to talk to each other, and will have
explicitly shared various drives/folders/what-have-you. The software
firewalls will have been configured with a "trusted zone" which consists of
the range of IP addresses used by the PC in the LAN. Unless you turn off the
WAP/Router's DHCP server function and use fixed IP addresses throughout, any
hacker will be allocated an IP address in the same range as the rest - and
will end up inside the trusted zone, able to access *any* shared resource!
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
But if you wish to connect another skt in the bedroom, a master skt wire
up
the 2 incoming wires to 2 and 4 would give a working skt

Ooer, which one of us is right :-} it`s been a long time since I wired
mine, and I working from a decidedly dodgy memory :-}

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

That should have been 2 and 5!

People in this situation will normally have File & Printer Sharing
enabled -
to enable the PCs on their LAN to talk to each other

But the system in question has only one computer. If it has a modern
operating system, like XP SP2, then network shares will have required
several warning messages to be ignored to have disabled the firewall.

Christian.

Colin Wilson wrote in message et...
now putting broadband in that house i dont really want to have to do
the same with an RJ11 cable too and wonder how easy it would be to put
a socket-box in that bedroom??


You should take the connections at the present master socket from the
seperate plug-in front part, not the back part of the master.

see now you have hit the nail on the head.I dont have this type of
master socket [called an NTE5 right?] i only seem to have the old
style junction box - this is just a plastic white rectangular box with
a single screw in the middle. the telephone cable from the telegraph
pole comes into this and a line comes out of this from the bottom and
is run all the way downstairs to the "main" plug sockt.

I phone BT to ask if i could have my junction box upgraded to an NTE5
and the intial woman i spoke to said yes in principle but then looked
on the computer and said it might not be possible as i had my line
hardwired in or something but an engineer would call me back to
discuss it further. she said the charge would be £25 [but she was
happy to put a note to waive this].

i [probably mistakenly] assumed the engineer would phone the same day
so called back at 7pm to follow-up, spoke to someone else and we
basically ran round and round in circles. She told me my "main socket"
had alreadt been converted to a plug-in socket and so that junction
box could probably be taken out and if i wanted an engineer coudl come
out to do that: charge = hourly after £130 starting fee.

I explained that this surely could not be right [she didnt have a clue
what an NTE5 was - admittedly i probably dont either] as the line from
the telegraph pole comes into this box and when we used to get water
in it the phone would start playing up; we went round and round with
this debate and in the end she felt she had convinced me that i was
talking about the wring this, that box is probably reduntant but an
engineer could come round to "remove or upgrade" with the fees as
explained; she [at my insistence] looked back at the previous lady's
comment and said the £25 was to convert the master socket to a plug
and mine already was so that pricedoesnt apply!

In the end we parted with her saying the topic would be "left open"
and someone [not an engineer] woudl phone me within 48hours.

so what is the score then?

if i were to do it myself i would need a crimping tool wouldnt i [not
withstanging that it seems i am not allowed to tamper with that
junction box]??

"Riz1" wrote in message
om...
snipped
see now you have hit the nail on the head.I dont have this type of
master socket [called an NTE5 right?] i only seem to have the old
style junction box - this is just a plastic white rectangular box with
snipped


Buy a new slave socket and wire it directly into the rectangular junction
box. If it is only for broadband connection, then all you need is the main
line to make it work. Connect the new slave socket to the White and Blue
(or Orange and White in some cases) of the main junction box. White to
number 5 and Blue connected to number 2 of the new slave box. It's that
simple.

Riz1 wrote:

see now you have hit the nail on the head.I dont have this type of
master socket [called an NTE5 right?] i only seem to have the old
style junction box - this is just a plastic white rectangular box with
a single screw in the middle. the telephone cable from the telegraph
pole comes into this and a line comes out of this from the bottom and
is run all the way downstairs to the "main" plug sockt.


snip tale of cross-purposes-talking

so what is the score then?

if i were to do it myself i would need a crimping tool wouldnt i [not
withstanging that it seems i am not allowed to tamper with that
junction box]??

As a matter of your contract with BT, of the legal ownership of that
section of wiring and the junction box, and of pragmatism (you don't
have the skills and knowledge to make it look like a pukka BT job ;-) -
no, don't tamper with that junction box. And no, it's not a crimping
tool you'd need, anyway.

It sounds as if the existing "junction box" is just that: a transition
between the outdoor cable (gel-filled, maybe) and the cheaper one used
indoors, but is *not* the "demarcation point", where BT's wiring ends and
yours begins. That, it seems, is your "main plug sockt" downstairs - and
that may already be an NTE5. (The distinguishing cunning characteristic
of the NTE5 is that it presents a modern-BT-style socket on the main
faceplate; when you undo the two screws holding the faceplate to the back
box, you find the faceplate itself "unplugs" from an inner socket of the
same style. The BT incoming wiring is fixed to the back of that "inner"
socket - and those are the connections you don't monkey with. The "inner"
socket acts as a test point - you can plug any phone into that, and if that
works while extensions don't, you've demonstrated the fault lies in the
extension wiring rather than in the BT line, as the idea of the NTE5 is
that any extension wiring is wired to the handy little "pushdown" connectors
on the NTE5 faceplate - so "unplugging" the faceplate also unplugs all the
extension wiring. Cunning, eh?)

Now, that's how new BT installs of ordinary voice lines (and now ADSL)
have been done for the last 15-20 years. BT will change older wiring to
this new scheme on request - and as you've found, there's a published
scale of charges for such work, which in practice you might find is
reduced or waived if you're getting sthg else done at the time, or just
because you say "I'm about to get NTL/Telewest in since they'll give me
a new line with cable modem and no installation fee". You've got two
separate interactions with the BT machine to go through: one is with their
call centre people, where your aim is to get them to send out an engineer
to do something the BT charging machine won't charge you too much for -
e.g. "conversion of existing installation to modern master socket". Quite
separate is your interaction with the nice BT engineer who turns up: this
person should be on the receiving end of tea/coffee, biscuits, friendliness,
and possibly tales of the apparent cluelessness of the call centre people
who may have misclassified the little job you have in mind. Given a
reasonable householder - and suggestions/request which don't increase
the amount of work - few engineers would, for example, baulk at putting
a new NTE5 in place of your existing junction box, leaving you to use the
old wire from there to the existing master as part of your extension wiring
(and to snip the existing bell capacitor to change that from a master to
a secondary socket), even if the letter of what they've been called out
to do might've been to replace the existing downstairs socket with a new
master socket.

HTH - Stefek

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:

People in this situation will normally have File & Printer Sharing
enabled -
to enable the PCs on their LAN to talk to each other

But the system in question has only one computer. If it has a modern
operating system, like XP SP2, then network shares will have required
several warning messages to be ignored to have disabled the firewall.

Christian.

In our discussion, we've rather wandered away from the OP's question!

I said a wireless solution wasn't a good idea in this case because wireless
connections are more temperamental than wired and because you needed a wired
a connection to configure the router. I also mentioned security issues in
passing.

Between us, we have broadened this to a discussion on multi PC LANs, rather
than just the OP's single computer.

My previous reply was addressing your assertion that a software firewall on
each PC (in a multi-PC setup) would stop a wireless hacker from doing
anything other than getting a free internet connection. I admit that by this
time I had lost sight of the OP's question, and was talking in more general
terms.

Do you understand what I'm getting at, in the general sense?
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Do you understand what I'm getting at, in the general sense?

Yes, but I still think a properly implemented wireless solution could be
appropriate for the OP.

Christian.

In article , Set Square
wrote:

Unless you turn off the
WAP/Router's DHCP server function and use fixed IP addresses throughout, any
hacker will be allocated an IP address in the same range as the rest

That's interesting. I deliberately have my network manually configured for
other reasons, so nice to hear it is more secure that way. I have set MAC
filtering and also 64 bit encryption on the wireless adapter. The router has
been setup in "stealth" mode, so it doesn't respond to any probes from the
Internet side. I am tempted to disable the wireless adapter when I'm not at
home, but hope I have done enough to prevent any but the most determined
hacker as it is!

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:

Do you understand what I'm getting at, in the general sense?

Yes, but I still think a properly implemented wireless solution could
be appropriate for the OP.

Christian.

OK, I don't think we're going to agree, but it was an interesting
discussion - if a bit OT!

Thankyou.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

That's interesting. I deliberately have my network manually configured for
other reasons, so nice to hear it is more secure that way.

More secure, but only by a small amount. Lack of DHCP would only be an
extremely minor distraction to a hacker. They can easily determine the
subnet in use and assign themselves a suitable IP address.

Christian.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Christian McArdle wrote:


More secure, but only by a small amount. Lack of DHCP would only be an
extremely minor distraction to a hacker. They can easily determine the
subnet in use and assign themselves a suitable IP address.

Christian.

Interesting! How would they actually do that - particularly if the network
is using a set of totally non-standard IP addresses, like mine is, and if
SSID broadcasting is turned off?

One also hears about 'spoofing' MAC addresses. How's that done?

--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Interesting! How would they actually do that - particularly if the network
is using a set of totally non-standard IP addresses, like mine is, and if
SSID broadcasting is turned off?

Just analysing network traffic to see what others are using.

One also hears about 'spoofing' MAC addresses. How's that done?

Network cards can be assigned a MAC address to override the built in one.
You need to listen to existing traffic again to snatch an allowed address.

Christian.

see now you have hit the nail on the head.I dont have this type of
master socket [called an NTE5 right?] i only seem to have the old
style junction box - this is just a plastic white rectangular box with
a single screw in the middle. the telephone cable from the telegraph
pole comes into this and a line comes out of this from the bottom and
is run all the way downstairs to the "main" plug sockt.


As a matter of your contract with BT, of the legal ownership of that
section of wiring and the junction box, and of pragmatism (you don't
have the skills and knowledge to make it look like a pukka BT job ;-) -
no, don't tamper with that junction box. And no, it's not a crimping
tool you'd need, anyway.

It sounds as if the existing "junction box" is just that: a transition
between the outdoor cable (gel-filled, maybe) and the cheaper one used
indoors, but is *not* the "demarcation point", where BT's wiring ends and
yours begins. That, it seems, is your "main plug sockt" downstairs - and
that may already be an NTE5.

Now, that's how new BT installs of ordinary voice lines (and now ADSL)
have been done for the last 15-20 years. BT will change older wiring to
this new scheme on request - and as you've found, there's a published
scale of charges for such work, which in practice you might find is
reduced or waived if you're getting sthg else done at the time, or just
because you say "I'm about to get NTL/Telewest in since they'll give me
a new line with cable modem and no installation fee". You've got two
separate interactions with the BT machine to go through: one is with their
call centre people, where your aim is to get them to send out an engineer
to do something the BT charging machine won't charge you too much for -
e.g. "conversion of existing installation to modern master socket". Quite
separate is your interaction with the nice BT engineer who turns up: this
person should be on the receiving end of tea/coffee, biscuits, friendliness,
and possibly tales of the apparent cluelessness of the call centre people
who may have misclassified the little job you have in mind. Given a
reasonable householder - and suggestions/request which don't increase
the amount of work - few engineers would, for example, baulk at putting
a new NTE5 in place of your existing junction box, leaving you to use the
old wire from there to the existing master as part of your extension wiring
(and to snip the existing bell capacitor to change that from a master to
a secondary socket), even if the letter of what they've been called out
to do might've been to replace the existing downstairs socket with a new
master socket.

HTH - Stefek

yes my plug sockets were definately put in within the last "15-20
years" so then i take it the 2nd woman was correct and my "master" is
not the "junction box" but the plug socket downstairs? darn it. I also
then take it the junction box CAN be taken out [as she kept
suggesting]? i still assume not as the phone did start playing up when
water got into it.

I take on board all you have said above - engineers have invariably
been friendly and helpful - the only question is [short of another
"water-condensation in junction box episode"] how to get the engineer
out for a low-charge/no-charge job? they already have it on file that
my installation has been "converted from hardwired"

if the junction box really is "surplus to reqiurements" and i have an
NTE5 master downstairs, am i "alright" to attempt wiring an additional
extension socket into that box myself or am i likely to cause havoc? i
am not fazed by the actually wiring dilemma but litle things like the
correct tools needed and losing all phone signal :-)

In article ,
Christian McArdle wrote:


Network cards can be assigned a MAC address to override the built in one.
You need to listen to existing traffic again to snatch an allowed address.

How about if that address was already in use, wouldn't there be collisions?

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk