I can't speak for Microsoft, Dick. If you want an answer from them,
you'll have to ask them.
NetBEUI was the default protocol in Windows 95. TCP/IP has been the
default protocol in every version of Windows since Windows 98.
Nothing in Windows networking has ever required NetBEUI. Even in
Windows 95, you can install TCP/IP and remove NetBEUI.
Yes, you can do this, but my experience(admittedly small) is that
it is difficult to do file and printer sharing with Win 95, Windows XP
and TCP/IP, and adding the second protocol makes it easy to do this. I don't
know why, and would like to know.
I think that NetBEUI has a longer history. That it was the
primary non-Netware protocol on MSDOS networks before
interest in the internet came along. My guess is that there are
lots of computers using it, under conditions that don't require
internet access, since it has a lower overhead than IPX/SPX
for small networks and doesn't require any configuration.
I think that a home broadband router gives all the security that's
needed, because:
1. The LAN computers have private IP addresses that aren't accessible
from the Internet.
2. The router's WAN interface has an accessible public IP address, but
the router has no access to shared resources on the LAN computers.
I think that a properly configured software firewall gives all the
security that's needed.
If I wanted multiple levels of security, I'd use both a broadband
router and a software firewall, but I wouldn't add another protocol.
I understand this, and use both the router's firewall and a software
firewall in my
network. My interest in a second protocol came from an incident in which an
internet site was able to learn the network ip address of one of my
computers.
This should be impossible as I understand how NAT routers work. I could
not find anything wrong with the configuration of the router. It's possible
that
there is something wrong with the router, of course, but since it otherwise
works ok, I think that is unlikely.
Luckily, the software firewall I run logged and stopped the attack.
So, I started looking at a second protocol for another protection layer,
and found that neither NetBEUI or NWLink work for my situation.
And that nobody could give me good, technical answers to why.
There are sites that religiously advocate using a second protocol, and
regard anyone who only uses one as nuts. Also there are people like
you that can't see any reason to use a second protocol. So far, I
haven't seen any good, technical discussions that would allow a
choice between the two options.
I, however have a situation in which one protocol doesn't seem to
be enough, and in which two protocols don't work.
And no-one seems to have any real reasons for why this is so.
The lack of a real reason that MS stopped support for NeBEUI
is just one of small pieces of the puzzle.
Perhaps this is the wrong forum for this discussion, but it
seems to me that having a second protocol that is not
routable, and that is easy to configure(and doesn't cause
browsing problems) would be a good strategic thing for
Microsoft to do to make networks more resistant to
outside attack. In addition to whatever firewalling you
do. That's all.
Dick Kistler
Oh, by the way, some of the sarcasm about MS's motives
came from the fact that they seem to be operating, like
most large corporations, in a mode that considers their
own problems to be more important than their customers.
Cases in point:
1. Dropping support for NetBEUI
2. Short end of life for Win 95, 98, 98SE also MSDOS
3. Dropping the ball on potential uses of Windows PE
4. Overly integrating Internet Explorer with the OS
5. Dropping support for distinctive ring from Window XP
Not meant to be comprehensive, just the things I personally
have run across in my work.
