[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 08:10:15AM -0700, Ray Olszewski wrote:
> At 07:55 PM 5/11/01 -0700, Cory Petkovsek wrote:
> >My reply (and my current setup) does have a nic that connects to the dsl
> router.  I have IP aliasing on the external nic, not the internal.  Aliasing
> the internal wouldn't do much good for security purposes.  The drawing I
> made actually excluded the switches, here's a more accurate rendition:
> [deleted]
> ...
> >Ray, is this unsafe?  Do you see a problem with my setup?  I am certainly
> open to constructive criticism.
> Looks fine to me; from your first posting, I simply hadn't sen where you
> were connecting up the DSL line. 
> Whether this approach would work for the original poster is uncertain. I've
> never tried IP-aliasing an interface that runs PPPoE, so I don't know if the
> two are compatible. (With PPPoE, the eth* interface itself doesn't get an IP
> address; software like the Roaring Penguin package runs a PPP session on it
> that gets assigned an IP address dynamically.)

Yes, I do have PPPoE with the cheap PacBell DSL package. My contract
runs out in a month or two, I got the free equiptment deal. I will be
looking into a static IP with out the PPPoE from other DSL providers,
any suggestions in the Sacramento, CA market? I know that the static IP
would be much easier to configure not to mention less load on the CPU. I
kind of figured that the PPPoE would by a problem. I checked out the LRP
versions that would work for 3 NICs but, I am interested in working with
other security products like Portsentry, Snort, Tripwire etc. You start
running out of room on the floppy firewalls when you add these. Plus I
like the easy updates with apt-get and the quickness of the Debian team
when it comes to security updates. Thanks for everyones input on this I
have more research to do :)

Kirk Schroeder

Reply to: