| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 38729 | 2003-10-16 19:46:00 | ADSL Router Recommendations? | Chilling_Silently (228) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 183989 | 2003-10-17 04:43:00 | Chill try Trademe Networking (www.trademe.co.nz). I reakon your better off plugging into your existing switch than using 2 NIC's and ICS. If you do use 2 NIC,s use different brands or at least models/revisions to avoid confusion. By using the switch you can go for a cheaper router, as long as it has NAT and the other goodies you require, and put the $$ saved elsewhere. Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 183990 | 2003-10-17 05:55:00 | > Technically you're better off having ports shown as closed than in stealth... I mentioned this issue in another thread a while back; if all your ports show as stealth, it's a like a blackhole to a hacker, because something goes in and nothing goes out, and it's just as obvious there is a computer/service there as it is if the port was open. Whereas with ports closed, a little packet will be sent back telling them that a computer/service on that port doesn't exist. Sorry agent thats just wrong. A stealthed port is actually much better than a closed one. A stealthed port doesn't give a reply and you can't tell if there is a computer there or not. Just because something got sent out and didn't come back doesn't mean there is a stealthed computer there. Send some packets off to a bogus address and the packets will disappear too. Its nowhere near as obvious that there is a computer there as with a closed port. A closed port is much worse. The computer replies that the port is closed and then the attacker can confirm a computer actually exists there. The attacker can then continue to the next step. You don't want packets being sent back to the attacker confirming that your computer exists but has a closed port. The idea is to make your machine invisible on the net, not visible with closed ports. FYI, a stealthed port is closed with the extra protection of stealth, so much better. |
PoWa (203) | ||
| 183991 | 2003-10-17 10:37:00 | Thanks Murray, that's what Im likely going to do (Trademe I mean..). As for the NIC's, they're both Realtek, both identical from DSE only one's WOL the other isnt.. lspci picked them up seperately and so I just ran: ifconfig up eth1 192.168.0.10 And that was it, all setup!! I'd rather have it going like this... means less chance of Blaster-worm incidents.. and yeah.. just more peace-of-mind having the traffic go thru my Linux box although its not really going to be doing much if my router does Firewall/NAT. |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 183992 | 2003-10-18 01:43:00 | Nokia M1122 is still by far and away the best ADSL router/hub out there. If you can get your hands on one of these then thats my reccomendation. | whiskeytangofoxtrot (438) | ||
| 183993 | 2003-10-18 01:51:00 | Hub! No way is a hub better than a switch. Plus it only has 10BaseT ethernet. Uhh any other "advantages" this has over current adsl routers? | PoWa (203) | ||
| 183994 | 2003-10-18 01:56:00 | >Chill, the Dynalink RTA300 ADSL Router with 4port switch, should suit you perfectly . I have that router and it has been ideal for me . It arrived with a dud power brick, but Dynalink changed that immediately and without question . If you think you might want WiFi in your network at some stage in the future, you may like to consider the more expensive Dynalink RTA300W model . The only difference is that it has a wireless access point in it as well (802 . 11b) . It would save you money in the long run to buy the 300W if you want to go down the wireless route at some stage in the future, and it would also save desk space and another brick in the junction box . . . John |
John H (8) | ||
| 183995 | 2003-10-21 01:42:00 | Im looking at the RTA300 or the DSE XH1149 Router So far the DSE one's looking more attractive because of Pricing. Has anybody got any comments on it?? Cheers Chill. |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 183996 | 2003-10-21 02:17:00 | Look for a router with NAPT or is it NATP, anyways any router that supports that is godsend. It fixes most the hassles we face with having NAT, and can eliminate the need for Pinholing, which is the biggest hassle. | Kame (312) | ||
| 183997 | 2003-10-21 02:21:00 | Plexuscom have good routers, and stronger signals than such like Dynalink or Nokia, and it supports NATP or NAPT (I should really find out what acronym it is... I just can't remember at this point in time). One thing about some of the Plexuscom is the updating of the router is a hassle unless you read somewhere that it'll say the browser stops responding about 1/2 way and you are meant to press F5 or refresh to get back to the control panel of the router but other than that... I highly recommend them. |
Kame (312) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||