Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client - needed for DHCP?

Is this optional network item:

Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client

Necessary for DHCP to function on XP-SP3 ?

What exactly won't the system be able to do if that item is
un-installed?

From: "XP Guy"

Is this optional network item:

Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client

Necessary for DHCP to function on XP-SP3 ?

What exactly won't the system be able to do if that item is
un-installed?

No. TRhat's SSDP and uPnP and will allow the desktop client to communicate with the
Router such that certain programs can communicate to Internet resources through NAT.


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

Is this optional network item:

Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client

Necessary for DHCP to function on XP-SP3 ?

What exactly won't the system be able to do if that item is
un-installed?

No. TRhat's SSDP and uPnP and will allow the desktop client to
communicate with the Router such that certain programs can
communicate to Internet resources through NAT.

I ask again:

What loss of functionality would I experience if I uninstalled
the "Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client" ?

What class of network devices would I experience difficulty or complete
inability to communicate with or use if I uninstalled that client?
Printers? Network shared resources? What - WHAT ?!

From: "XP Guy"

| "David H. Lipman" wrote:
|
Is this optional network item:

Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client

Necessary for DHCP to function on XP-SP3 ?

What exactly won't the system be able to do if that item is
un-installed?

No. TRhat's SSDP and uPnP and will allow the desktop client to
communicate with the Router such that certain programs can
communicate to Internet resources through NAT.
|
| I ask again:
|
| What loss of functionality would I experience if I uninstalled
| the "Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client" ?
|
| What class of network devices would I experience difficulty or complete
| inability to communicate with or use if I uninstalled that client?
| Printers? Network shared resources? What - WHAT ?!

The loss whould be control of software that allows some programs to work
through a NAT Router.

In short, you should NOT be disabling services unless you have a thorough
understanding of the consequences and what other services may have
depencencies on a different service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_...overy_Protocol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upnp


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

| What loss of functionality would I experience if I uninstalled
| the "Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client" ?
|
| What class of network devices would I experience difficulty or
| complete inability to communicate with or use if I uninstalled
| that client? Printers? Network shared resources? What - WHAT ?!

The loss whould be control of software that allows some programs to
work through a NAT Router.

So configuring the port-forwarding on a router could not be done
"automagically"?

So something like a bit-torrent client would be a bit harder to set up?

I assume that software that needs to change the settings on XP's
internal firewall is not impacted by the presence or absense of the
"Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client" (IGDDCC) service
- yes?

I mean really - what other commonly-used software needs to fiddle with
the settings of a residential gateway or router?

And in a commercial or corporate / institutional setting, is there a
compelling reason or need for this IGDDCC function/service to be running
on a user desktop computer / workstation?

XP Guy wrote:

| What loss of functionality would I experience if I uninstalled
| the "Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client" ?

I am configuring a new XP-Master hard drive and this is the reason why
I'm putting some effort to take all the garbage out of it before I start
cloning it.

I un-installed this Gateway Discovery piece of garbage and the system
doesn't even miss it.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:59:57 -0500, XP Guy wrote:

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

The loss whould be control of software that allows some programs to
work through a NAT Router.

So configuring the port-forwarding on a router could not be done
"automagically"?

So something like a bit-torrent client would be a bit harder to set up?

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have ports
opened/forwarded? I haven't seen that in a long time, at least 5 years
or more.

On 21/02/2012 6:58 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:59:57 -0500, XP wrote:

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

The loss whould be control of software that allows some programs to
work through a NAT Router.

So configuring the port-forwarding on a router could not be done
"automagically"?

So something like a bit-torrent client would be a bit harder to set up?

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have ports
opened/forwarded? I haven't seen that in a long time, at least 5 years
or more.

That's because most of them are now using UPnP to do the port forwarding
themselves. If the OP turns off the services associated with UPnP, then
those clients will be affected.

Yousuf Khan

On 21/02/2012 9:59 AM, XP Guy wrote:
So configuring the port-forwarding on a router could not be done
"automagically"?

So something like a bit-torrent client would be a bit harder to set up?

I assume that software that needs to change the settings on XP's
internal firewall is not impacted by the presence or absense of the
"Internet Gateway Device Discovery and Control Client" (IGDDCC) service
- yes?

I mean really - what other commonly-used software needs to fiddle with
the settings of a residential gateway or router?

And in a commercial or corporate / institutional setting, is there a
compelling reason or need for this IGDDCC function/service to be running
on a user desktop computer / workstation?

It's mainly a feature for use at home, for home networking. In most
corporate firewalls, NAT doesn't even come into play, so forwarding is
not necessary.

Anyways, here's a list of services that can be turned on or off
depending on your needs:

http://www.blackviper.com/2008/05/19...onfigurations/

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:03:13 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 21/02/2012 6:58 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:59:57 -0500, XP wrote:

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

The loss whould be control of software that allows some programs to
work through a NAT Router.

So configuring the port-forwarding on a router could not be done
"automagically"?

So something like a bit-torrent client would be a bit harder to set up?

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have ports
opened/forwarded? I haven't seen that in a long time, at least 5 years
or more.

That's because most of them are now using UPnP to do the port forwarding
themselves. If the OP turns off the services associated with UPnP, then
those clients will be affected.

I don't have much experience with BT, but I have uPNP disabled in the
router and uTorrent works fine, so apparently it's able to figure
something out. A few years ago I tried a client called Azureus, or
similar, and it too worked fine without uPNP enabled.

Char Jackson wrote:

The loss would be control of software that allows some programs to
work through a NAT Router.

So configuring the port-forwarding on a router could not be done
"automagically"?

So something like a bit-torrent client would be a bit harder to set
up?

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have ports
opened/forwarded?

I'm just tossing out ideas or examples of application software that have
a reason to be able to reach out and mess with router / gateway
settings.

Maybe some gaming software might also have a reason to do that.

You got any ideas?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have
ports opened/forwarded?

That's because most of them are now using UPnP to do the port
forwarding themselves. If the OP turns off the services associated
with UPnP, then those clients will be affected.

There are a lot more devices besides routers and gateways that use UPnP.

Are you saying that you'll kill an XP system's ability to utilize UPnP
if this gateway device discovery client is un-installed?

Why is this client specifically called "Internet Gateway Device"
discovery and control?

Looks pretty specific to me.

Char Jackson wrote:

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have
ports opened/forwarded?

That's because most of them are now using UPnP to do the port
forwarding themselves.

I don't have much experience with BT, but I have uPNP disabled in
the router and uTorrent works fine, so apparently it's able to
figure something out. A few years ago I tried a client called
Azureus, or similar, and it too worked fine without uPNP enabled.

Your router is not forwarding any ports that you might have set up
manually, in the past, for BT?

I'm pretty sure that bit torrenting requires port-forwarding.

You should fire up a BT client and then log into your router and see if
any ports are being forwarded while the BT client is running.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:53:14 -0500, XP Guy wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Are there still BT clients floating around that need to have
ports opened/forwarded?

That's because most of them are now using UPnP to do the port
forwarding themselves.

I don't have much experience with BT, but I have uPNP disabled in
the router and uTorrent works fine, so apparently it's able to
figure something out. A few years ago I tried a client called
Azureus, or similar, and it too worked fine without uPNP enabled.

Your router is not forwarding any ports that you might have set up
manually, in the past, for BT?

Not for BT and not for anything else. I don't have any ports forwarded
anywhere.

I'm pretty sure that bit torrenting requires port-forwarding.

I agree that it used to. My son used to use it in the era of 2001-2004
and I had to forward some ports for it to work for him. That's not
required anymore. I haven't done a packet capture, but I suspect the
BT client is simply initiating one or more outbound connections, which
of course become two-way connections once established. Port forwarding
isn't required in that case.

You should fire up a BT client and then log into your router and see if
any ports are being forwarded while the BT client is running.

Done, and no.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:53:14 -0500, XP Guy wrote:

I'm pretty sure that bit torrenting requires port-forwarding.

I agree that it used to. My son used to use it in the era of 2001-2004
and I had to forward some ports for it to work for him. That's not
required anymore. I haven't done a packet capture, but I suspect the
BT client is simply initiating one or more outbound connections, which
of course become two-way connections once established. Port forwarding
isn't required in that case.

It still is. Just think what would happen, if everybody did *not*
open ports - your outbound connections would not be able to connect to
anything. The only reason that BT works in your case is because your
client connects to people who *have* some ports open / forwarded. Nobody
can connect to you from the outside, though, and the quality of the
torrent suffers, You get half the connections you otherwise would.
Depending on the torrent, the speed can be much lower. I can attest that
I get much better torrent speeds at home, where the client configures
the UPnP router, than at work, where there is no UPnP device, and the
only connections of my BT client are the outgoing ones.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.