On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 01:43 +1000, Minh Van Le wrote: > But I get additional flexibility with network segregation and experiments > with subnetting.
Unlikely. Parallel links are much harder to engineer that you might think. At the data rates you are talking you are simply better off using a faster interface if you need more performance. > Wow I didn't even think about turning on bridge mode :) > > Probably because I prefer not directly exposing a whole operating system to > the internet even if it's hardened & firewalled. Atleast with the ADSL modem > any software exposure is limited to firmware and all it does is NAT, whereas > hooking up a Linux PC to a modem in bridge mode sounds a lot riskier to me. If you want to offer services like mail and web then you'll find doing NAT on the Linux box is more convenient. Otherwise it doesn't really matter. I don't buy your security argument though. The ADSL router probably runs Linux :-) > > - configure fprobe-ulog (or similar) to generate NetFlow (IP > > traffic) > I plan on using pmacct (Promiscuous mode IP Accounting) with Cacti or > something. I only suggested fprobe-ulog since you were worried about performance, and thus wanting to keep the interface out of promiscuous mode. But for a little application like this, whatever is simpler is usually the best (eg, your choice of Cacti rather than Torrus). -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
