[nos-bbs] Missing something - 44 net

[George (Skip) VerDuin]

OK Barry, I now believe I see the distinction...
Check me out?

On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 15:06 -0400, Barry Siegfried wrote:

> ["George (Skip) VerDuin" <k8rra at ameritech.net> wrote]:
> 
> >SNIP<
> > I have not thought this through fully yet (I admit)...
> 
> There was a time when using a NOS or Unix/Linux machine to implement
> a "software solution" to implement NAT was the only way you could get
> a single IP address user account to service more than a single client
> machine behind it but today, the consumer IP/NAT routing appliance is
> so commonly available that it is somewhat of a no-brainer whether or
> not to use one.

Now this is how I see your LinkSys solution as applied to an existing
Linux jnos install:
A) remove the tun device
b) attach a spare eth(1?) to the jnos stack
c) attach the LinkSys INTERNET to the eth(1?) interface (external modem
presumed)
d) configure NAT & Firewall to interface to 44... static IP of jnos
e) attach the LinkSys LAN to the host eth(0?) interface
f) attach the remaining LAN ports to other hosts and also to the other
internet bridge containing DSL or CABLE etc interface.
g) route as appropriate...

Interesting concept - I doubt I would have tumbled to this on my own...

> 
> The other thing that using an IP/NAT router in this configuration
> does for you (particularly for those who are using cable internet
> access) is that it eliminates the requirement that your NOS or
> Unix/Linux machine, 1) have two interfaces in it in order to
> accommodate a LAN "behind" your internet connection, and, 2) hear
> all of those incessant ARP broadcasts on your "local" cable segment.
> The amount of this traffic IS signficant (depending on the size of
> your segment, of course) and using an IP/NAT router will completely
> free your NOS or Unix/Linux machine from the resources it would have
> to devote to hear all of these ARP broadcasts.

I never considered the Linux/jnos box as the internet gateway - although
there is a great deal of press on the subject.
It seems like OLD 386/486 throw-aways make a "good" bridge/firewall as
an alternative to a LinkSys appliance.
I do now wonder if adding jnos to this incoming bridge thus expanding it
to Internet + RF paths makes sense?
The device needs no operator interface since everything may be doable
remotely via telnet - ssh - etc...
This one for another day?

Thanks for the concept Barry, I may already have all the hardware to try
this out for kicks.
As an aside:  you notice that Maiko has begun the process of detaching
jnos/host support routines/libraries?
It may be a future strategy of his that NAT can be "plugged in" when
needed and not included into the application?
Our conversation here may become the "old way" of doing things...


> 
> 73, de Barry, K2MF >>
>            o
>           <|>      Barry Siegfried
> +---------/-\---------------------------+
> | Internet | bgs at mfnos.net              |
> | HomePage | http://www.mfnos.net/~bgs  |
> +----------+----------------------------+
> | Amprnet  | k2mf at nnj.k2mf.ampr.org     |
> | PBBS     | k2mf at k2ge.#cnj.nj.usa.noam |
> +----------+----------------------------+
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs


73
de Skip k8rra k


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/nos-bbs_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20060725/23d7ae52/attachment.html>