On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:31, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote: > This is way OT, but this list is such a great resource I suspect the > advice gotten here will be more to the point. ( I have posted to a > network hardware group as well) > > I've bumped my home lan router to a gigabit from the old 10/100 > (NETGEAR FVS318). > > I made the move for the gigabit lan ports mainly. That is, I was > happy with other aspects of the old router. I ended up with a cisco > RVS4000 v2. > > The cisco solved the gigabit problem with 4 lan ports and even a > gigabit on the Internet port... (which is probably not really doing > any thing on a cable connection). And it wasn't hideously > expensive ($112.91). > > I could have solved the problem with gigabit switches behind the > router for lan usage, just as well, and may go to that yet, and move > back to the old NETGEAR router. But somehow I expected the cisco to > be something that was `excitingly' new and fun to play with. > > I'm disappointed in the cisco so far as logging is concerned. > > The logs give only bare information like this: > > Mar 10 10:24:21 - [Firewall Log-PORT SCAN] TCP Packet - 60.173.11.56 --> > 98.217.231.32 > Mar 10 10:24:21 - [Firewall Log-PORT SCAN] TCP Packet - 60.173.11.56 --> > 98.217.231.32 > [...] > > No mention of which port is involved. Not only on port scans but > ports are never reported. And of course if you wanted to pursue any > of it by way of google, you'd need the port number. > > The Old Netgear sent logs like this (wrapped for mail): > > Sat, 2007-07-28 12:00:11 - TCP packet - Source: 161.170.244.20 - > Destination: 70.131.83.195 - [Invalid sequence number received with > Reset, dropping packet Src 443 Dst 1385 from WAN] > > ------- --------- ---=--- --------- -------- > > I went for the cisco instead of a newer `gigabit' NETGEAR after seeing > several bad reviews about them. And I just assumed the cisco would > have as good or better other features. > > Another little problem is that the Cicso had reached its end of life > and was reported as such by cisco, well before I bought it. But of > course, retailers (not cisco) don't bother to give that kind of info, > but the result is that a kind of blackball list that was part of the > deal is no longer kept up to date. > > So, cutting to the chase; can anyone recommend from actual use, a home > lan router that has gigabit lan ports and very configurable/ > informative logging options? > > ps - I'm not interested in running an old linux or openbsd, machine as > router. Having a silent cool router the size and weight of a medium > book is too appealing. >
Have you checked out Mikrotik's RB750G? 5 GbE ports: http://routerboard.com/pricelist/download_file.php?file_id=256 Mikrotik OS is Linux-based, the firewall is Netfilter-based, and it's Lua-scriptable. Rgds, -- Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com
