On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 13:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider. They
have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I currently
have a
DSL service through the telephone company and, for several reasons including
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 13:08 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
Also, an entire transaction will go over only one of the lines,
meaning you will only get the throughput of one line at a time.
I forgot to mention that independent applications (therefor many
independent connections) won't use just
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:58 -0700
Timothy Selivanow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way that you would be able to use them is a semi-load-balancing
formation. What I mean by semi is that all traffic that exits one
interface will always return to that one. Also, an entire transaction
will
Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:58 -0700
Timothy Selivanow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way that you would be able to use them is a semi-load-balancing
formation. What I mean by semi is that all traffic that exits one
interface will always return to that one. Also, an
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:35 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
If you had 2 Internet firewalls each with their own default route, each
doing NAT. On each of these firewalls you had a squid process running
proxying requests and chaining requests from one squid to the other
depending either on,
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Frank Cox wrote:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider.
They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I
currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several
reasons including the fact
Here's what I would get:
http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS336G.as
px
TWO wan interfaces in either Failover or Bonded, IPSEC and SSL VPN
tunnels.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122213
I'm REALLY tempted, as I have a Linkproof
Peter Arremann wrote:
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Frank Cox wrote:
I do some occasional tech work for a cable TV/Internet service provider.
They have now offered me free services, including cable Internet. I
currently have a DSL service through the telephone company and, for several
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:48:33 -0400
Peter Arremann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting better answers when posting on two lists? ;)
Yup. More answers from more people. Gotta be good!
Anyway - I have a similar setup - Fios and cable modem. I use a Xincom
router.
Cool. I was just snooping
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:11 -0700
Dennis McLeod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's what I would get:
http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS336G.as
px
That, and the xincom router mentioned above by Peter, look like exactly what I
want.
Thanks!
--
MELVILLE
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:08:52 -0600
Frank Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:48:33 -0400
Peter Arremann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting better answers when posting on two lists? ;)
Yup. More answers from more people. Gotta be good!
Anyway - I have a similar setup -
On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
I'm thinking that this sort of setup can't be too uncommon in big
small
business networks. An office with 600 networked computers won't be
sucking on
one measly DSL line, but they might be using ten at a total cost
that's less
than a
In the event that the internet connection is DOWN (box is fine just the
cable modem is down)
how do I set things up so I can take advantage of the second internet
connection?
there are more ideal [and complex] ways of setting up the connections
so you only use one firewall - maybe using the
13 matches
Mail list logo
