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

Re: home network



On Tue, Mar 27, 2001, Jason Majors wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 07:44:11PM -0500, William T Wilson scribbled...
> The second way is a much better choice for a couple other reasons. It's much
> more secure. The only box on my network that somebody can see is my gateway.
> And it doesn't have an sensitive files or important data, so if some script
> kiddie does manage to get me, it's not a big loss. This is doubly important if
> you run non-secure OSs (windoze, MacOS below X), because the gateway acts as a
> firewall for them. And the cable company (or DSL company) will usually charge
> you $5-10 per month extra for each computer you have on the network. But with
> an IP Masqerading firewall, you don't have to pay extra.
> 

Hi,

If you don't want to get down-and-dirty with configuring IP-masg with
two-NIC's on one box to serve as internet gateway, you can buy a combo
4-port switch / gateway / firewall that will do pretty much the same,
from Netgear, Linksys, or any other number of companies.  They give
most of the advantages of dedicated linux box router/gateway, but
probably won't be as full-featured in certain areas: (firewall
scripts, passing certain packets for difficult application (CuSeeMe,
certain games, etc.)).  I personally use IP-masq on Debian Potato on
an old box as my gateway, but I've also set up a Netgear RT-314
(relatively nice, will even syslog to remote box, sturdy steel
construction).  You can get it for $130, plus $30 mail-in-rebate (for
next 4 days).  So at maybe $50 more than a Netgear switch alone,
without the need for a computer (and accompanying noise, power draw,
etc.), it may be worth while considering.

Hope this helps,

Daniel


> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
Daniel A. Freedman
Laboratory for Atomic and Solid State Physics
Department of Physics
Cornell University



Reply to: