On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 12:30, rob apodaca wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:45:09 +0100 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Been away from the group for a while, but tried searching the archives for this >one and couldnt find anything :( > > if this has been done before or theres a howto, could someone point me in the rite >direction :) > > > > I have a main server, with LTSP running on it, and several clients. > > I also have a old P300 acting as a router running 'Clarkconnect 1.0' for >firewalling etc. (based on RH7.3) > > > > Would it be posible to replace the P300 with an LTSP box and still use it as a >router? > > e.g. boots from the main server and then runs as a router (the main server handles >all DHCP & booting etc.) > > this way i would only have to stick a UPS on the server and if the router was >powered off it wouldnt care :) > > I think this might also make restoring/securing the router a wee bit easer ? > > > > is this posible? and (more importantly) is this a good idea? or am i just adding >more workload for no returns? > > I have been thinking about this very subject for the last few weeks. There are many >good existing methods to set up a linux router.
>I mostly like LRP and it's derivatives. But, there is only so much space available on >a floppy disk. Would it be posible to convert the LRP style floppy to a bootable image? you might even be able to increase the size of the boot image that way? > > A LTSP solution would be thin yet able to handle many extras and changing config >would not be a problem. All it should take would be a suitible kernel in >/tftpboot/ltsp and probably a different root path on the server - something like >/opt/ltsp/router. Probably some boot scripts would need modifying and add some >provisions for the ltsp.conf file for things like: > R_WAN = eth0 > R_LAN = eth1 > R_VPN = yes > ...etc > > Upside > 1. Various packages could be developed for things like VPN and SSH. > 2. Multiple routers could be easily set up this way. > 3. > > Downside > 1. If LTSP server is not up, then router won't work. basicly in the setups i run, if the LTSP server is down then no ones going to work! The LTSP sorkstation would be down and the standard workstations wouldnt be able to access there files from the main server plus DHCP would be down as well, so i wouldnt think this was all that bad ? > 2. ? > > Questions > 1. Since there are two NIC's in the router, what happens when booting from etherboot. > Will both cards make a dhcp broadcast? Will it matter? No only the card thats got the boot-rom init or the card whos driver is on the bootdisk would request the bootp, just asked this one and got a reply from [EMAIL PROTECTED] see it for more detailed answer > > 2. Security? security should be as good as your firewalls, anyone else want to coment on this bit? You could if you wanted try restricting the access from the router LTSP within the server if you wanted or for a muchmore secure option, use a UML sesion to handle the boot/root for the router, althow this may be a bit of an overkill :) > > 3. ? > > So I'm thinking a LTSP router might be worth the work - unless there is some major >disadvantage that I haven't considered. > > Thoughts? Cant think of anything major, the bigest problem i can see is configuring the netcards so there isnt any conflicts with the main LTSP server > > Cheers, > -rob Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
