Virtual Private Hosting

Virtual Private network with netgear fwg114p?
I am trying to create a vpn between my 2 houses. I have a netgear fwg114p. I set up the connection in the router, and then try to connect with my desktop, using windows xp. It then tells me that the host exists, but that I can not connect to it. Any info. will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Maybe I am not fowarding the right ports? What are the vpn ports for xp. And what kind of vpn does my router use? PPTP, L2PT, ECT.

Well here is the MANUAL information for setting up your VPN http://kbserver.netgear.com/pdf/fwg114pv2_ref_manual_19july05.pdf The type of connection all depends on WHAT YOU SETUP! Since this is house to house you can use anything you like, it just has to be the same on each router! If both routers are setup for a VPN (router to router) you need do nothing within XP to use it, it will be connected to the other router automatically and all machines will be connected as if they were LOCAL!

How might I host a VPN in windows XP pro?
Can anyone suggest a 3rd party application for hosting & configuring a Virtual Private Network? I've not had any luck with the Windows Network Setup Wizard because of a missing service called "Routing and Remote Access". I'm unable to start this service with Services.MSC either. :( Thanks

I use a program called Hamachi, it creates a Seure VPN that will connect to anyone who also has it installed. There is noo need for a server as it is p2p, and also no need to forward any ports on the router.

Self-Hosting vs. VPS: which is right for me?
I have two hosting needs: PHP and Rails. I've had (a bad) experience hosting a PHP site on a shared server. I've also briefly run a simple PHP server for a hobby site with low-availability standards. Now that I'm considering running a serious, large site (Ruby on Rails), in addition to a few small existing PHP sites, should I host myself, or choose a Virtual Private Server? * I have a 3.0GHz P4 / 1GB ram machine I could dedicate to hosting. * I am familiar with general computer security principles, programming, and Linux * I have a Comcast cable connection (no static IP) * I can't imagine spending much more than $50 / mo. to start. I'll add any details you consider relevant.

I recommend http://www.slicehost.com

How do I transparently tunnel a private subnet over a routed network (like a 'virtual hub')?
I've got two devices with hard-coded configurations, at 192.168.0.5 and 192.168.0.6. Their subnets are set to 255.255.255.0 and they do not have gateways. They can talk to each other on a crossover cable or a hub or a switch. How do I help them talk across a normal network--e.g. across the country--to tunnel the packets transparently, though that might not be what it's called? I have use of Cisco routers. Two of our sysadmins were unable to figure out how to do this, cursing the dumb embedded devices. I don't want to put some kind of host widget on either one of them, just want to plug into existing routers without adding additional hardware. It seems to me that routers are smart and very configurable, and should be able to make a virtual wire or hub like this. I'd be even more pleased if I could setup a laptop on (for instance) 192.168.0.20, on a switch at one end, and talk to both of them. It's like a switch cut in half with the halves moved cross- country. Easy?

Seems like you are lacking some severely necessary networking knowledge. If your sysadmins were unable to figure this out, then they too are lacking the basic knowledge. Let's get started. Network Number: 192.168.0.0 Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 0.0.0.0 (none or any) Going back to back with a cross over cable, the 2 devices will of course broadcast over an extremely private network. They will create general broadcasts at 192.168.0.255 (broadcast address) to find each other and guess what? they will find each over quite easily. This is a peer to peer setup and is quite limited in how they operate over a larger network. Now let's throw a router into this mix. In order to do this, the devices will need a switch or a hub to connect to before connecting to the router, otherwise the router better have multiple LAN ports (to behave as a switch or hub). The configuration will be something like this: router (192.168.0.1) | Switch / Hub | | Device 1 Device 2 (192.168.0.5) (192.168.0.6) Each device will now point to the gateway address of 192.168.0.1. This is important not only so that the devices can see each other (which they would be able to do even without the gateway), but they can also see other devices on the network, and the router can send packets to devices on other networks. Here is the problem you are having however, you want to use 2 routers on the same network number for 2 different locations. 192.168.0.0 where the network number is simply just 192.168.0 (the last octet is just the node or device number on the network ID). Keeping this in mind, we can see that the following diagram may help: (192.168.0.205) (192.168.0.206) Device 1 Device 2 | | Switch / Hub | router 1 (192.168.0.128) | router 2 (192.168.0.1) | Switch / Hub | | Device 3 Device 4 (192.168.0.5) (192.168.0.6) In order to allow this configuration to work, you now have to implement subnetting. The purpose of the subnet mask is for this very reason. For devices behind router 2, here is the configuration: IP Address: 192.168.0.(2 through 126) Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.128 (only have the class C) Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1 For devices behind router 1, here is the configuration: IP Address: 192.168.0.(129 through 254) Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.128 (only have the class C) Default Gateway: 192.168.0.128 Now as far as the transparency that you mentioned, if you are talking about a local area network, the above configuration would make it possible. If you were talking about a wide area network, that opens a new can of works. First question would be, are you planning on having an ISP provide you with a private tunnel connection or do you plan to implement this WAN via the Internet? A private tunnel would certainly simplify matters greatly as the above configuration would be almost exactly what you need. If to perform this over the Internet, then you will need to implement a VPN tunnel or site to site communications. Everything really needs to be considered and having a strong knowledge of the intricacies of networking is essential. I am sorry if any of this sounded condescending, but from what I have read, a grasp of networking knowledge is missing. Hope this all helped.