Just out of curiosity are your clients staff or students? If he is trying to protect the servers from students on campus I can sort of (just a little but still wouldn't do it) see his point for the firewall. But still the firewall between the machines that need access to the server is just going to require you to open up a bunch of ports and render the firewall useless.
Also are the machines supposed to join the Domain that's going to be on the other side of the firewall. The setup seems kind of silly to me. I live in San Pedro so if you need some consultant work that has experience in educational institutions give me call. I also do tours of my site. Keith Nelson Network Administrator Orange County High School of the Arts [EMAIL PROTECTED] (714) 560-0900 ex5910 -----Original Message----- From: Ken Leyba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Stupid Firewall Tricks Yes, the clients will use POP/SMTP, IMAP and MAPI. That was my point exactly, we'll have two Swiss Cheese firewalls. Unless the Cisco PIX can do some kind of magic firewall tricks that I don't know about. Ken ----- Ken Leyba Windows/Exchange System Administrator California State University Dominguez Hills > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:22 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Stupid Firewall Tricks > > > How are you intending these users access the exchange server? > MAPI client > like Outlook? > > The holes necessary for your users to communicate with > Exchange are such > that your firewall between the users and Exchange has been > rendered useless. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Leyba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:15 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Stupid Firewall Tricks > > > Our director wants us to implement a firewall in front of our Windows > 2000/Exchange 5.5 servers. Here is what the scenario is: > > Internet <--> Users <--> Firewall <--> Exchange > > On the Exchange side we have the DC's, Exchange, IMC, OWA, > etc. servers. On > the public side we have the Windows 98/2000 clients, WINS > server (which is a > whole different issue) and Internet. There is a firewall before the > Internet connection but it is basically useless since nothing > is configured. > On the private side we are to use NAT, since all the servers > except the > backup server will need to be accessed from the outside I > really don't see > what this is buying us. Basically we are putting a firewall > in front of > Exchange. We are currently testing the configuration but I > think this may > end up being a nightmare once we begin to change the Windows > 2000 servers > (i.e. Active Directory) IP addresses and DNS settings to the private > addresses. > > I began by making registry hacks to force the RPC's through > specific ports > but our backbone admin figured out how to configure the PIX > firewall without > me having to make the changes. Now I'm reinstalling the test > server to see > that it's actually working. > > Can anyone give me any ammo as to why this is not the way to > do things. I > have tried to explain but I'm getting nowhere. I don't know maybe I'm > wrong. However it seems it would be safer to implement the > firewall at the > internet connection, we seem to be trying to protect > ourselves from our > users. There would be a lot of politics involved with the > Internet firewall > but it does seem like the way to go. > > Thx, > Ken > > ----- > Ken Leyba > Windows/Exchange System Administrator > California State University Dominguez Hills > > List Charter and FAQ at: > http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm > > List Charter and FAQ at: > http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm > List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
