On Wednesday 25 August 2004 10:25, Graham Monk wrote: > On Wednesday 25 August 2004 08:43, Brad Camroux wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:29:17AM -0600, Cameron Nikitiuk wrote: > > > I wouldn't mind hearing more about it. I am evaluating the future of > > > my network at home and am looking at implimenting some of the things > > > you are mentioing. Looking at adding wireless to the mix as well. > > > > I, too, would enjoy a talk on IPCop. I am planning on using it once I > > get my home network together. > > Me too, question, the blue interface is meant for a wireless access point, > would it also work with a wireless router?
I'm not a wireless guy, but my guess is that although the technical answer is yes, you'll find that having multiple routers like that can become pretty complex (read ugly) in a hurry. For example. If your internal network was 192.168.0.0/16, and you assigned 192.168.5.0/24 to the Blue Interface, the wireless router may then further assign 192.168.1.0/24 to the wireless clients dia DHCP. You'd need to remember not to use this for your green network, and you'd also have to specify a route between the 192.168.1.0/24 network and everywhere else that went through 192.168.5.0/24. This isn't too bad, but add in a VPN or two, and you're looking at a REALLY ugly network to administer. Not to mention the additional latency of having packets masqed by your wireless router, then by the IPcop box. That would be a HORRIBLE connection, particularly if it was busy. If there isn't a need to do routing, then don't. That'd be my $.02 Kev. > > graham > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
