> And what if the 'device' includes stuff like port filter rules,
> regular routing and things that are used in the so called
> 'broadband routers' and common firewalls? aaah, now it's getting
> tricky!
Actually, combining independent functions is pretty common in network
equipment. However, I'd
I think I would choose... hmm... sock, I mean that is also used to keep
stuff(read smelly feet) where it's suposed to be.
And what if the 'device' includes stuff like port filter rules, regular
routing and things that are used in the so called 'broadband routers'
and common firewalls? aaah, now it'
Your talking about 192.169.ect.ect 10.x.x.x ? A Cisco will route and
advertise those blocks just like any other addresses unless you filter
them out. There is no hard coded rule in a cisco that stops joe idiot
from annoucing 192.169.x.x to the world besides the clueful admin and
his bogon filter.
> But if I were to choose between hub, switch,
> router, brouter, bridge or gateway, I would say router because
> that is closest to the function...
And if you were to choose between boat, gorilla, alien, and sock, which
would you pick? It doesn't matter since none of the choices mentioned
by eit
oh, yeah, must keep this thread going!
Well, they are classed 'non routable', but they are fully routable...
A NAT device is somehow in the grey zone because it's connected to at
least 2 networks. And somewhere in the device it route packets. But as
you said, the packets also get translated which
> > A router (by my reckoning, anyway) would be any device that routes
> > packets between networks. A NAT device does this; a switch does not.
>
> I think thats correct, be it $100 or $38,000 not including
> operating system (thanks Cisco) if it moves packets from IP
> network to another, its a ro
6 matches
Mail list logo
