JJZolx;192940 Wrote: > By "not exposed", can we assume you mean that the .168.x network has no > means of contacting the outside world? Yes, albeit I presume if a connected Internet facing device is compromised it can in turn be used to attempt compromise of devices on the .168.x network.
JJZolx Wrote: > So your SB3s can't use Squeezenetwork, for instance? Why is that > desirable? At present I've no use for Squeezenetwork. At this time none of the radio stations I'd like to listen to work correctly with Squeezenetwork or connecting directly from the SB3. JJZolx Wrote: > What you need to worry about is the outside world contacting your > internal machines, which is usually protected against by your > router/firewall by default. Agreed, but I still feel better knowing my music and family video and picture libraries aren't Internet facing. JJZolx Wrote: > This setup seems overly complicated. I don't see the need for two > subnets and two NICs in the PCs. Both PCs came with two on-board NICs. I trust the question of two subnets is explained above? JJZolx Wrote: > Why two wireless access points? The SB3s do 802.11g, so they shouldn't > negatively affect throughput of the wireless network, and the 54GB+/- > will likely be much faster than your Internet connection, so all of the > devices maxed out simultaneously shouldn't be starved for bandwidth. Agreed, however, so long as I want to keep the two subnets apart I'm guessing there is no other way? -- egd Linux and loving IT! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ egd's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3425 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34226 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
