First, I'm working on the 7.1 as soon as I can get my cd burner to figure out the iso files. Second, the DHCP is "leased" on a per connection basis and is NOT static. Third and fourth, I do not have a router, only an 8 port hub. I have the Qwest VDSL service that is part of the Choice On-Line/ TV package. I have a gateway that feeds both our digital TV and internet. The hub plugs into the gateway with the uplink port. The 4 windows PC's connect through the hub. One of those is my NT server which is the PDC, but due to the Qwest is NOT a DHCP server. I do not have a router or dsl modem and no phone lines are involved so your scenarios seem to fall off at this point. For a firewall I have ZoneAlarm on all windows PC's. From: "Eric Van Buskirk" To: Subject: RE: Networking Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:45:30 -0800 Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us Looks like you alread have some good people helping you out, so I am going to say some things which may be more tangential to your specific situation. So take what you like, if anything. I make some assumptions here, some of which may be mistaken. First, I would concur that you should upgrade to 7.1. Second, when you said you get your ip addresses from qwest, it wasn't clear if that meant you simply leased *static* adresses from them on a monthly basis (for which they want an extra $35.00 per month from me), or whether you lease a dhcp address from them on a per connection basis. These are two different kinds of leases, hence the confusion. Third, you must have a router, one which I don't remember you mentioning (but I do have a tendancy to read too fast!). The router will either an intel, cisco, linksys, or some such. Would be curious to know, as I have qwest "service" as well. Fourth, it seems as though you have each computer configured for a ppp connection with qwest: that is, each computer has a direct connection to qwest (direct, but still through your dsl router (or "modem")). And from qwest, each computer leases a separate dhcp address. If this is correct, I would be curious to know why you did it this way. This method is less secure: first, for protection you are relying solely on the merits of your router and its built-in firewall; second, each comptuer has a "routable" (public) address, which makes it one-step easier for you to be hacked; third, if you would have done it the way I am about to suggest, then you would have been already up and running.