Kelsey

The idea of a router between the cable and the linux box came from someone at 
work who uses just a router and its software has no firewall box. I felt that a 
firewall system would be better.  

What you put between the linux box and the other computers - a router or hub?

Andrew


---- kelsey hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello
> > 
> > I am about to put together a home based network that is connected to
>  > a cable modem. My initial thoughts are to connect a router to the
>  > cable modem and then a linux firewall box to the router. I would then
>  > connect a hub or router to the linux firewall. The other computers
>  > would then connect to the router. How does this approach sound? Would
>  > it help make the system more secure than just using a router as the
>  > firewall only?
> 
> using a consumer-grade NAT box as a firewall isn't really using a 
> firewall at all. What I'd do, if I were in your situation, is this:
> 
> cable ----- linux ------ switch
> modem        box         | || |
>                           | || |
>                        other boxes
> 
> You can set up a simple firewall on the linux box to protect the rest of 
> your machines, and also do NAT. iptables is great.
> 
> Definitely using the nat box alone isn't a secure idea. The scenario I 
> mentioned above, however, is probably the best, as you're only doing NAT 
> once, and the firewalling capabilities of linux vastly outweigh those of 
> the silly nat boxes.
> 
> I've done this setup for a number of years without any trouble 
> whatsoever (aside from the deficiencies arising from NAT on the internal 
> network, but those are to be expected).
> 
> Good luck,
> -Kelsey
> 
> 
> -- 
> [email protected]
> http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list


-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to