On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:15:08 +0200
Angelo Turetta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ispánovits Imre wrote:
If in this switch I dont't find any possibility to define that tagged port
ten it means that this switch is unable to do this kind of job, or maybe if
I
define a port which belongs to all
Bill Marquette wrote:
It's as secure as the switches vlan implementation.
That and your switch configuration. Refer to your switch vendor's
documentation on recommendations for secure VLAN configurations. Even
though Cisco has gone to great lengths to ensure their VLAN's are
secure, not
On 5/17/06, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Marquette wrote:
It's as secure as the switches vlan implementation.
That and your switch configuration. Refer to your switch vendor's
documentation on recommendations for secure VLAN configurations. Even
though Cisco has gone to great
On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:31:50 -0500
Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/06, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Marquette wrote:
It's as secure as the switches vlan implementation.
That and your switch configuration. Refer to your switch vendor's
documentation on
On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, seconded :) Using dedicated (untagged) vlans for each port in a
trunk configuration is a good idea too if your switch supports this.
Trunked vlans? How this looks like?
Again, I think my terminology is getting the better of me.
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:32:41 -0500
Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, seconded :) Using dedicated (untagged) vlans for each port in a
trunk configuration is a good idea too if your switch supports this.
Trunked vlans?
As a best practice for security, avoid using vlan1 since this is
usually used for management and in the past has had vlan hopping
vulnerabilities. Overall, using multiple vlans on a single physical
link is a very effective, economical and secure way to manage a network.
Park
On May 16,
On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:32:41 -0500
Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, seconded :) Using dedicated (untagged) vlans for each port in a
trunk configuration is a good idea
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:25:20 -0500
Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:32:41 -0500
Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, seconded :) Using
To anyone having problems with the ftphelper working in active mode over
a bridge, please reply to this email with the ftpd software you're using
and whether or not that ftpd returns 200 ... in response to a PORT
command. It appears that some ftpd's are not RFC compliant and this is
what's
Hey list:
Im a Comcast cable subscriber using PFSense as my
gateway.
I have a device that MUST use upnp (*ducks*) to function
correctly. Im sure that this isnt supported now (or will be) so
Im opting to get a second IP address. The device that needs the extra
address sits on my lan
Chad Frerer wrote:
Hey list:
I’m a Comcast cable subscriber using PFSense as my gateway.
I have a device that MUST use upnp (*ducks*) to function correctly.
I’m sure that this isn’t supported now (or will be) so I’m opting to
get a second IP address. The device that needs the extra address
12 matches
Mail list logo
