On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 12:55 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Du, 13 feb 11, 09:22:56, Tixy wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 03:01 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > On Sb, 12 feb 11, 18:18:24, Tixy wrote: > > > > > > > > Would another option not be to just get a switch and not bother with a > > > > second Ethernet card in the server? This is the setup I run, i.e. > > > > > > > > Modem <-------------> +--------+ > > > > Firewall/Server <---> | Switch | > > > > Other system(s) <---> +--------+ > > > > > > Yes, but only if the modem is also a gateway (NAT + DHCP). > > > > My Firewall/Server does the NAT and DHCP, and is the gateway for my home > > network. The modem just provides my server with a PPP connection to my > > ISP. > > You mean your modem is connected directly to the switch (in bridge > mode?), but the server is doing the NAT?
Yes, the modem [1] doesn't have any other features. I deliberately chose it for that reason as I wanted everything I could under my complete control. :-) > I know this can be done, but is generally not recommended, unless you > have very good reasons not to put a second ethernet card in the server > and do it properly. My server is a SheevaPlug [2], so no room for another NIC ;-) I couldn't see any practical reason for a second Ethernet interface anyway. There's performance issues when input and output traffic share a single interfaces, but as my ADSL speed is <2% of that of the servers Gigabit Ethernet adaptor, that doesn't really factor in. [1] http://www.draytek.co.uk/products/vigor120.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug -- Tixy () The ASCII Ribbon Campaign (www.asciiribbon.org) /\ Against HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1297596912.2916.35.ca...@computer2.home