From: elaconta.com Webmaster
> Thanks for the oppinions and wise advices of everyone on the mailing
> list. I've given some deep thought to the subject and i'm
> going with an
> OpenBSD bridge and a separate box for DNS caching. We're going to have
> some work reconfiguring the LAN clients but it'
Dag Richards escreveu:
> Webmaster Elaconta wrote:
>> I'm not looking forward to addressing the router to a different subnet
>> (and i know that would solve the problem) because our Internet-facing
>> servers are connected directly to that router in DMZ fashion (the router
>> forwards ports to them
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 07:04:04AM -0700, Matt Radtke wrote:
> Your Linux box is very like running as a real bridge
> (set eth0 and eth1 as a brige) or a fake brige
> (running proxy-arp).
Dear "elaconta.com Webmaster",
please post at least the output of 'ifconfig -a' and 'route -n' to
this list.
Webmaster Elaconta wrote:
I'm not looking forward to addressing the router to a different subnet
(and i know that would solve the problem) because our Internet-facing
servers are connected directly to that router in DMZ fashion (the router
forwards ports to them). The firewall is also connected d
Matt Radtke escreveu:
> Hello there
>
>
>>> Router (192.168.1.120) <-> (192.168.1.121)
>>>
>> Firewall PC (192.168.1.122)
>>
>>> <-> (192.168.1.0/24) LAN
>>>
>>> Now, thing is, the Linux firewall has two NICs:
>>>
>>> NIC 1: 192.168.1.121
>>> NIC 2: 192.168.1.122
>>>
>>> The two NICs
Hello there
> > Router (192.168.1.120) <-> (192.168.1.121)
> Firewall PC (192.168.1.122)
> > <-> (192.168.1.0/24) LAN
> >
> > Now, thing is, the Linux firewall has two NICs:
> >
> > NIC 1: 192.168.1.121
> > NIC 2: 192.168.1.122
> >
> > The two NICs on the Linux box are configured with
> 192.168.1.
I'm not looking forward to addressing the router to a different subnet
(and i know that would solve the problem) because our Internet-facing
servers are connected directly to that router in DMZ fashion (the router
forwards ports to them). The firewall is also connected directly to that
router and t
If i set one of the NICs to a 255.255.255.255 netmask (i know it's a
"cheat"), say the one that connects to the 192.168.1.0 LAN, won't it
be able to connect to the LAN that way?
Also, what if i add an alias to the second NIC the the box and do
something like:
192.168.1.120 (Router)
|
192.168.1.12
It's not a bridge because i can SSH to any of the IPs of the Linux box
(192.168.1.121 ou 192.168.1.122) from the local network (and only one of
the NICs in the box is directly connected no the LAN). From what i know,
bridges have no IP addresses. Or am i wrong?
--
Elaconta.
On Thursday 27 July 2006 06:37, elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
>
> Router (192.168.1.120) <-> (192.168.1.121) Firewall PC (192.168.1.122)
> <-> (192.168.1.0/24) LAN
>
> Now, thing is, the Linux firewall has two NICs:
>
> NIC 1: 192.168.1.121
> NIC 2: 192.168.1.122
>
> The two NICs on the Linux box a
elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
The networking scheme is:
Router (192.168.1.120) <-> (192.168.1.121) Firewall PC (192.168.1.122)
<-> (192.168.1.0/24) LAN
Now, thing is, the Linux firewall has two NICs:
NIC 1: 192.168.1.121
NIC 2: 192.168.1.122
The two NICs on the Linux box are configured with 1
elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Howdy
We have here an old (Mandrake Linux 8 - yeah i know...) PC with two NICs
which serves as a firewall for our LAN and runs a Bind caching nameserver.
Although the machine is getting old, it still works well. Thing is, i'm
having a hard time trying to reproduce i
On 2006/07/26 23:37, elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
> Router (192.168.1.120) <-> (192.168.1.121) Firewall PC (192.168.1.122)
> <-> (192.168.1.0/24) LAN
> >From what i've googled, this shouldn't even be possible, everything is
> on the same subnet. Regardless, it works great, and if i went and got a
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Now, thing is, the Linux firewall has two NICs:
>
> NIC 1: 192.168.1.121
> NIC 2: 192.168.1.122
>
> The two NICs on the Linux box are configured with 192.168.1.121 and
> 192.168.1.122, both interfaces on the same subnet.
> 192.168.1.121 acesses
> the company router (19
elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Howdy
We have here an old (Mandrake Linux 8 - yeah i know...) PC with two NICs
which serves as a firewall for our LAN and runs a Bind caching nameserver.
Although the machine is getting old, it still works well. Thing is, i'm
having a hard time trying to reproduce i
Howdy
We have here an old (Mandrake Linux 8 - yeah i know...) PC with two NICs
which serves as a firewall for our LAN and runs a Bind caching nameserver.
Although the machine is getting old, it still works well. Thing is, i'm
having a hard time trying to reproduce it, that is, getting another PC
t
16 matches
Mail list logo
