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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Daniel A. Freedman Laboratory for Atomic and Solid State Physics Department of Physics Cornell University
