Re: router

From: Hairy One Kenobi (abuse_at_[
Date: 06/16/04

  • Next message: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Rem36.exe"
    Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:33:44 +0100

    "Colonel Flagg" <> wrote in
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > > > the key word is "flexible", a cisco _anything_ cannot do _everything_
    > > > linux box can do....

    <big snip>

    > the only thing they offer is routing and firewalling (and a couple with
    > IDS). a *nix firewall can offer that and just about anything else you
    > can imagine.

    A better argument (based on the assumption that running anything other than
    firewall software on a firewall is A Bad Idea(tm)), is that a generic[1]
    *nix box can be more versatile, by including things like DMZ routing

    Personally, I prefer two hardware routers[2], but each to their own.. in my
    case, I found it less trouble (and taking up less power & space) than my
    original Linux-based jobbies. Oh, and the FTP configuration was a complete
    bitch to get working, back in 1999 or so. The Netgear worked out-of-the-box.

    A thoroughly neutral Hairy One Kenobi
    Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
    reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
    in the first place. So there!
    [1]  i.e. a PC/pizza[3] style of box running *nix, as opposed to a Zyxel
    hardware firewall running *nix under-the-bonnet [hood]
    [2] While it's unlikely that my Zyxel-based Netgear router or a generic *nix
    router would be compromised, a three-NIC ITX-based router - if compromised -
    would open up both the "DMZ" and the private LAN.
    [3] I've an old Sparc Ultra that might be available to a good home.. at the
    moment, it's just taking up space.

  • Next message: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Rem36.exe"