Amen, my brotha. Actually, I find FreeBSD's network stack is also a bit more fine-tuned than Linux. Of course, you're probably just better off buying a DSL router for $50. I recall Fry's had a special a while back on the Netgear RT311 for $50 (Linksys sells a similar model, both are excellent.) You'd need an extra hub, but those are easily obtained. No matter what people might say, a dedicated router will be faster and require less maintainence. Sometimes it's just worth the saved time and effort to spend some cash on a pure hardware solution.
-Ryan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of paul nichols Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:04 AM To: Daniel Brown Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HW recs for gateway computer As we __all__ know, you should use freebsd, not linux. paul "the prophet" muad'dib On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Daniel Brown wrote: > if you dont want to run linux, then you are stuck with win2k server > and demands for a fast pc > > if you want to use linux (i thought you would), then take a deep > breath , set aside a few (hundred) hours, and get ready to have some > fun. i have the exact same situation (cable modem with low-end > dedicated ip-masq router) used a slackware 8.0 install (with upgraded > kernel). just about any configurable installation will do. i like > slack because it gives you extensive control over what is and isnt > installed. > > for what you need, you dont need very much installed at all. basic > libraries (glibc, maybe perl, python, i see no reason for java) -- all > depends on how much extra stuff you want to compile and install on it > later. if you have the disk space, just put all the libraries (of > languages that youve actually heard of ;) ) on it. basic networking > apps (telnet, sshd, no httpd (apache), no ftpd (proftpd, wu-ftpd, > etc...), etc... basic admin tools (shells, /sbin, /bin, etc...), and > some other stuff i surely cant bring to mind... > oh yeah, a kernel > > as far as kernel versions go, you need to make a decision about which > packet filtering tool you want to use. i initially ran ipchains (2.2.x > kernels) cause 2.4.x was quite new, but i recently upgraded to 2.4.9 > and had to switch everything over to iptables. i like iptables better > than ipchains. its organized a little better (they learn a bit more > how to organize these firewalling/filtering tools all the time). i say > you start with iptables. forget ipchains and its predecessor (i forget > the name -- was for 2.0.x kernels). besides, it will make you learn > how to download, compile, and install a kernel (no, you cant cop-out > and just run 2.4.5 from the slack install :P ). you will run 2.4.10 > (download it from > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.10.tar.gz), or i > will make you run 2.4.10. not really. its just good to know how to do > this. > > the iptables howto is available (unofficially still) from > http://netfilter.filewatcher.org/unreliable-guides/NAT-HOWTO.txt and a > packet filtering howto (for more advanced firewalling) is available at > http://netfilter.filewatcher.org/unreliable-guides/packet-filtering-HO > WTO.txt > > > again, you cant use iptables unless you are running a 2.4.x kernel if > you are trying to do this with 2.2.x (and dont want to upgrade for > some reason), you must use ipchains. a HOWTO for ipchains is available > on http://www.linuxdoc.org check the HOWTOs section. if you are > further trying to do this with 2.0.x (why?) then you need to use some > other tool. i think its called ipfwadm or something... ya, that looks > right (ip firewall admin). there is no reason to regress this far > back. some people have things against new kernels and new tools. but > ipchains and 2.2.x kernels are not still new. if you use ipfwadm and > 2.0.x kernels, then you smell bad. > > umm... oh, how to use this stuff. read HOWTOs and Guides on > http://www.linuxdoc.org (great site). there will be one illustrating > how to compile a kernel, how to install a kernel, even how to write > kernel modules and hack around in kernel guts. dont tell me they cant > tell you how to do it. they might tell you how to do it in 30 pages, > but its there somewhere. > > for those who dont want to read, (lazy, kinda like me), here is a > brief rundown of useful commands and stuff: > > man <command> read the manual page for <command> > tar -xvf <file> unarchive a .tar file > gunzip <file> unzip a .gz file > tar -xzvf <file> unarchive and unzip a .tar.gz/.tgz file > cp <file1> <file2> copy file1 to file2 > mv <file1> <file2> move file1 to file2 (or to rename) > rm <file1> remove a file > > cd /usr/src/linux && make mrproper && make menuconfig && make dep && > make clean && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install && > depmod -a && cp arch/i386/bzImage /vmlinuz && cp System.map > /boot/System.map && lilo && reboot > recompile and install my kernel ;) > find guide/howto for this one! > > i think that should give you a good start. ... you will need to > compile a kernel specially to run any kind of nat (network address > xlation), so dont think you can get out that easy. go ahead and grab > 2.4.10. > > if i missed anything or you got a Q, dont hesitate to spam it out to > the siglinux list. thats what its for > > daniel brown > > > > Jai Jai wrote: > > > I look forward to this info also, and hope that any replies will > > either be sent to the list or that I could be cc'd in the reply. > > > > > > No matter what you may believe to be true, Benjamin Bradley said: > > > >> Hi, I'm about to (hopefully) set up a LAN between the (4-5) > >> computers in my house and would like to share a cable modem > >> connection between them. We're thinking of setting up an older > >> computer to be a dedicated gateway system. My question is: how fast > >> does this gateway need to be? It seems like it wouldn't have to be > >> very fast since all it's doing is NAT, but I don't want to get > >> stuck with bad service. > >> > >> Also, is there any sort of step-by-step guide anywhere to set up > >> this kind of thing? I'll be honest: linux scares me. I know it's > >> the best way to set > >> it up, but I realize that I don't know nearly enough to set this up on my > >> own - much less troubleshoot it when things mess up. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
