Re: simple router ?
Frank Bonnet said: Hi I'm planning to build a simple router with FreeBSD the machine will not support firewalling, it will be a straight router that route between the two interfaces :-) it will be dedicated to this service. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? If your needs are simple, don't use any full-featured FreeBSD release for a firewall. It's too much time to set up, lock down, and you could probably spend days just tweaking firewall rules if you haven't done it before. Instead, check out m0n0wall, a FreeBSD-based firewall that's been stripped down and rebuilt for the singular purpose of routing packets. http://m0n0.ch/wall/ There's also IPCop, if you're willing to try a Linux-based solution. http://www.ipcop.org -- Charles Ulrich Ideal Solution, LLC - http://www.idealso.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
simple router ?
Hi I'm planning to build a simple router with FreeBSD the machine will not support firewalling, it will be a straight router that route between the two interfaces :-) it will be dedicated to this service. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? Thanks -- Cordialement/Regards Frank Bonnet ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'm planning to build a simple router with FreeBSD the machine will not support firewalling, it will be a straight router that route between the two interfaces :-) it will be dedicated to this service. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? 5.3. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
Hi. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? 5.3. Why? -- === Sergey Evteeff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (846)245-4040 fax:(846)245-4120 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
Sergey Evteeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? 5.3. Why? The only thing wrong with 5.3 is the gvinum doesn't work yet. It doesn't seem like you'll be using gvinum. If you install 4.10, you'll want to upgrade at some point in the future when 4.X isn't supported any more. Unless you know factually that you won't be keeping this server around very long (i.e., less than a year). If that's the case, use 4.10 as it's a more tested codebase. I still think that's wrong, as servers always seem to stay around longer than you plan. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:44:36PM +0400, Sergey Evteeff wrote: Hi. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? 5.3. Why? For the simple reason that it's going to be supported for a lot longer than 4.X, which is now the legacy release... -- Daniel Bye PGP Key: ftp://ftp.slightlystrange.org/pgpkey/dan.asc PGP Key fingerprint: 3B9D 8BBB EB03 BA83 5DB4 3B88 86FC F03A 90A1 BE8F _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML, vCards and X - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ pgpkICqGDpr89.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: simple router ?
On Mon, 29 November, 2004 15:05, Bill Moran said: Sergey Evteeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? 5.3. Why? The only thing wrong with 5.3 is the gvinum doesn't work yet. It doesn't seem like you'll be using gvinum. If you install 4.10, you'll want to upgrade at some point in the future when 4.X isn't supported any more. Unless you know factually that you won't be keeping this server around very long (i.e., less than a year). If that's the case, use 4.10 as it's a more tested codebase. I still think that's wrong, as servers always seem to stay around longer than you plan. There have been quite a lot of threads in the past month regarding the network performance of 5.3 being inferior to 4.10. You might also want to bear in mind that with the 5 series you have the benefit of OpenBSD's pf firewall. Although more information on 4.x and pf is available at the following link. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2004-September/000300.html Personally, if it was me, I'd go with 5.x rather than 4.x, but if you are going to be pushing a lot of data then perhaps search the archives for the last month or two regarding network performance. Cheers, David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
David Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 29 November, 2004 15:05, Bill Moran said: Sergey Evteeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. What would be the best version of FreeBSD to perform such operation 4.10 or 5.3 ? 5.3. Why? snip my earlier comments There have been quite a lot of threads in the past month regarding the network performance of 5.3 being inferior to 4.10. You might also want to bear in mind that with the 5 series you have the benefit of OpenBSD's pf firewall. Although more information on 4.x and pf is available at the following link. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2004-September/000300.html Personally, if it was me, I'd go with 5.x rather than 4.x, but if you are going to be pushing a lot of data then perhaps search the archives for the last month or two regarding network performance. I'm not sure if this is 100% correct anymore. I seem to remember that the performance problems were in 5.3BETA and were fixed prior to the release of 5.3-RELEASE. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think research of reliable sources would be smart. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
On Mon, 29 November, 2004 16:37, Bill Moran said: David Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There have been quite a lot of threads in the past month regarding the network performance of 5.3 being inferior to 4.10. You might also want to bear in mind that with the 5 series you have the benefit of OpenBSD's pf firewall. Although more information on 4.x and pf is available at the following link. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2004-September/000300.html Personally, if it was me, I'd go with 5.x rather than 4.x, but if you are going to be pushing a lot of data then perhaps search the archives for the last month or two regarding network performance. I'm not sure if this is 100% correct anymore. I seem to remember that the performance problems were in 5.3BETA and were fixed prior to the release of 5.3-RELEASE. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think research of reliable sources would be smart. This is quite interesting. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-November/064401.html And specifically. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-November/064427.html Cheers, David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple router ?
Bill Moran wrote: There have been quite a lot of threads in the past month regarding the network performance of 5.3 being inferior to 4.10. You might also want to bear in mind that with the 5 series you have the benefit of OpenBSD's pf firewall. Although more information on 4.x and pf is available at the following link. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2004-September/000300.html Personally, if it was me, I'd go with 5.x rather than 4.x, but if you are going to be pushing a lot of data then perhaps search the archives for the last month or two regarding network performance. I'm not sure if this is 100% correct anymore. I seem to remember that the performance problems were in 5.3BETA and were fixed prior to the release of 5.3-RELEASE. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think research of reliable sources would be smart. Well ... I forgot to say I need this router for few weeks only it will be replaced by a cisco box when I will be able to purchase it ,-) So I think a conservative choice would be the best for me in the light of advices I got from people of this list. So I'll build the router on 4.10 base as I really don't need extra features than routing . Thanks a lot guys Frank -- Cordialement/Regards Frank Bonnet ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 05:51:50PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: Danny wrote: I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. You'll probably just want to set gateway_enable=yes and natd_enable=yes Umm... why exactly would he need natd in this situation? Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
Matthew Seaman wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 05:51:50PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: Danny wrote: I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. You'll probably just want to set gateway_enable=yes and natd_enable=yes Umm... why exactly would he need natd in this situation? My mistake, I misread the first IP range. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:58:08 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:06:51PM -0500, Danny wrote: I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. Just setup your FreeBSD box with an interface on each network, and put 'gateway_enable=YES' into /etc/rc.conf Trivially easy. Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? It hardly makes a difference either way. Seeing as they're all RFC 1918 network blocks (or should I say RFC 3330 nowadays?) presumably they're on a private internet and you can do what you like there. Thank you, the packets are a flowin' now. :) - D ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? Thank you Cheers to FreeBSD! -D ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:06:51PM -0500, Danny wrote: I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. Just setup your FreeBSD box with an interface on each network, and put 'gateway_enable=YES' into /etc/rc.conf Trivially easy. Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? It hardly makes a difference either way. Seeing as they're all RFC 1918 network blocks (or should I say RFC 3330 nowadays?) presumably they're on a private internet and you can do what you like there. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
Danny wrote: I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. You'll probably just want to set gateway_enable=yes and natd_enable=yes I believe there are a number of tutorials on this, one in the handbook? Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? I wouldn't recommend using 255.255.0.0. It'll work fine for now, but if you start to scale up you'll wish you didn't have 65536 hosts on a single network leg. If you're sure you'll never be scaling up, then that netmask is fine, it won't cause any problems. If you're sure, can I borrow your crystal ball some time? ;) -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use?
I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 network, and obviously vise versa. Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? Thank you Cheers to FreeBSD! -D ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
