Gerhard Magnus wrote: > I recently had to deal with my ISP about a connectivity problem that > turned out to be on their end. (The tech referred to linux as lie-nux > and insisted on doing everything in XP which I fortunately had > dual-booted.) But in the process of working through this it was > necessary for me to describe the way I'd set up my LAN here and he > seemed incredulous. This wouldn't bother me except that I've gotten this > reaction before from people in the outside world but never an > explanation. So I'm asking: is there something weird about this > structure? Is there some "better" or more standard setup? > > The DSL modem Actiontec modem provided by Quest plugs into the phone > jack. The Actiontec is an older model with only one ethernet plug. Since > I have four boxes, two of which are dual booting Fedora and XP, I have > an ethernet cable connecting the modem to the DSL plug of a Linksys > router. I then have separate cables connecting the four outlets on the > router to each of the four boxes. (I did all this cabling at a time > before wireless routing was as available and cheap as it is today.) > > Each of the six operating systems (4 linux and 2 XP) has a static IP > address and each has a firewall. I have NFS running on the linux > systems. There's another firewall on the router, which is currently > port-forwarding only ssh and torrent data from the outside world. > > I thought I'd check this out before going further.... > Unusual was my first DSL setup, many years ago. My ISP even let you run servers and provided DNS service if you had your own domain name. I had a P-75 running as a combination of firewall, web server, and relaying mail server. It also did NAT. I would not consider such a setup secure now days, but the risk at the time was acceptable. Mike -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature