Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Terry D. Cudney]

Hi guys,
	This is an interesting uestion/suggestion...

	I have an old '386 sx 20MHz w/ only 4MB of R
AM. Is this enough machine to act as a gateway/firewall between either a DSL connection of a Cable connection running DHCP?

	If not, what would be the minimum machine required to act in this capacity? Or, alternatively, what is the cost/capabiliyt  of the dedicated router that Kirk is talking about?

	--terry


On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kirk Wood wrote:

> Brent,
> 
> You should look into getting a dedicated broadband router designed for
> home use. It will make your (and our) life much easier as the
> configuration is straight forward out of box. There will be clear
> instructions on setting it up. It will allow all your devices access to
> the net with no confusing howto articles to figure out.
> 
> 

-- 
		--terry

Name:	Terry D. Cudney
Phone:	(905)735-6127
E-mail:	terry@wasagacottage.com
WWW:	www.wasagacottage.com
Postal:	18 Colbeck Drive, WELLAND, ON L3C 5B5

dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

	I hear now there's another entry in the mix of dsl, "P O A. I heard linux
doesn't have good support for it, somehow it uses the raw traffic of dsl
with ppp, but I really don't know much about it. I think, once my isp
starts offering it, they say they install a router, so hopefully it'd be
good enough to handle whatever they use, but one never can tell. If it
really is a router, and it gets the static IP I should be maintaing even
when I get it, how can I run stuff in linux like mail, web, whatever that
outsiders still can access? If eth0 gets the private address the router
uses for gatewaying, http requests would be taken by the router, not the
linux box behind it.

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

Nah your computer has the IP, as far as I know.  The router presumably
makes sure traffic destined for you goes to you and stuff that isn't
doesn't (DSL owners may well know more about this).  If you have a network
then you'd need 2 cards in your gateway box, one for your LAN and one for
the DSL.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

This is a new thing that ISPs have come up with in response to the media
coverage of danger in a permenant connection. Because the media has been
in a frenzy of the dangers involved in a full time connection, people who
know nothing and are in relatively little danger have cryed for protection
from the ISP.

Some ISPs offer NAT to resolve this problem. For most people that is fine,
but once again because of mass ignorance that wasn't a usable
solution. You see people who know something and wanted to run servers
pointed out that NAT has limitations (most of which don't effect the
average user at all) and so ignorant people cried again. They didn't want
the limitations of NAT, but they wanted protection.

So some bright person came up with "new" technology. They decided they
would use PPP over a standard ethernet connection and have the computer
establish a connection when active using the internet. Then after a period
of inactivity it would drop (or could be forced to drop when all internet
apps closed like a dial-up connection). This "new" technology offered the
speed and conveniance of DSL with the protection of dialup. The computer
would no longer be a sitting duck on the net all the time and would again
have a dynamic IP.

Now for many what I am describing sounds very much like VPN technology. I
personally don't know the details, but it sounds like it to me. Southwest
Bell offers it in this area with their USB DSL modems. While some would
say it is now hardware, I would point out that many VPN solutions exist in
hardware. Now for the long and short of it as I can see:

If the solution is in the hardware you shouldn't have any more trouble
then a full time connection. I would look to see if it is supported by
Windows NT and Macs. I doubt they would invest the time into software for
both NT and a Mac. If it can be supported in Win 3.x it is most certainly
able to work in Linux. But the ultimate way is to say no thanks and
specify you want a static IP address with full time connection. If one
provider doesn't offer that, call annother. Someone will sell you what you
want if they can.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

Does a hub do the trick? I always thought I needed the two cards as I
likely will use more than one machine with it. I was thinking of getting a
new machine with linux already on it, to use it as the gateway as well as
running whatever I want to run all the time. 
At 11:03 PM 9/10/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Nah your computer has the IP, as far as I know.  The router presumably
>makes sure traffic destined for you goes to you and stuff that isn't
>doesn't (DSL owners may well know more about this).  If you have a network
>then you'd need 2 cards in your gateway box, one for your LAN and one for
>the DSL.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

I intend to use it as a full time connection when I get it. I'm likely to
get another machine to put just linux on to do that, and use it as a
gateway for the linux-windows combo, and my laptop. What happens if I tried
to maintain a full connection by pinging something every so many minutes so
things don't go inactive? Dialup, and it's disadvantages is something I've
been wanting to get rid of for awhile now. Static ip with dialup is kind of
in the middle, people know where you are, but you have the ability to
disconnect.
At 09:09 AM 9/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>This is a new thing that ISPs have come up with in response to the media
>coverage of danger in a permenant connection. Because the media has been
>in a frenzy of the dangers involved in a full time connection, people who
>know nothing and are in relatively little danger have cryed for protection
>from the ISP.
>
>Some ISPs offer NAT to resolve this problem. For most people that is fine,
>but once again because of mass ignorance that wasn't a usable
>solution. You see people who know something and wanted to run servers
>pointed out that NAT has limitations (most of which don't effect the
>average user at all) and so ignorant people cried again. They didn't want
>the limitations of NAT, but they wanted protection.
>
>So some bright person came up with "new" technology. They decided they
>would use PPP over a standard ethernet connection and have the computer
>establish a connection when active using the internet. Then after a period
>of inactivity it would drop (or could be forced to drop when all internet
>apps closed like a dial-up connection). This "new" technology offered the
>speed and conveniance of DSL with the protection of dialup. The computer
>would no longer be a sitting duck on the net all the time and would again
>have a dynamic IP.
>
>Now for many what I am describing sounds very much like VPN technology. I
>personally don't know the details, but it sounds like it to me. Southwest
>Bell offers it in this area with their USB DSL modems. While some would
>say it is now hardware, I would point out that many VPN solutions exist in
>hardware. Now for the long and short of it as I can see:
>
>If the solution is in the hardware you shouldn't have any more trouble
>then a full time connection. I would look to see if it is supported by
>Windows NT and Macs. I doubt they would invest the time into software for
>both NT and a Mac. If it can be supported in Win 3.x it is most certainly
>able to work in Linux. But the ultimate way is to say no thanks and
>specify you want a static IP address with full time connection. If one
>provider doesn't offer that, call annother. Someone will sell you what you
>want if they can.
>
>-- 
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>------------------
>
>Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
>		Alfred North Whitehead
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

Brent,

You should look into getting a dedicated broadband router designed for
home use. It will make your (and our) life much easier as the
configuration is straight forward out of box. There will be clear
instructions on setting it up. It will allow all your devices access to
the net with no confusing howto articles to figure out.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

A broadband router can be set to point services to a machine inside the
protected network. As far as the ISP is concerned it is just another
computer. They really don't give a rip what kind of computer you
install. They only support certain platforms because it costs money to
keep people qualified to help with many different platforms.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

Even though the router takes the static IP when you access the IP, it can
be set to give the linux box instead of the router's telnet or web
interface? Then it goes in to what type of encoding the isp uses to know
which type to use, how weird if you don't use what they provide.
At 12:58 PM 9/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Brent,
>
>You should look into getting a dedicated broadband router designed for
>home use. It will make your (and our) life much easier as the
>configuration is straight forward out of box. There will be clear
>instructions on setting it up. It will allow all your devices access to
>the net with no confusing howto articles to figure out.
>
>-- 
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>------------------
>
>Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
>		Alfred North Whitehead
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

Wow, so they make these to hook the dsl line right in to? You can hook the
dsl line in to them, and hook them to an ethernet card just like the normal
provided modems they give that probably don't give this functionality?
At 02:05 PM 9/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>A broadband router can be set to point services to a machine inside the
>protected network. As far as the ISP is concerned it is just another
>computer. They really don't give a rip what kind of computer you
>install. They only support certain platforms because it costs money to
>keep people qualified to help with many different platforms.
>
>-- 
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>------------------
>
>Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
>		Alfred North Whitehead
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

Terry,

I think you have a great canidate for the job. Compile a kernel with only
what you need and go for it. Your machine has more memory then many Cisco
routers come with and about the same processor power.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

Terry,

Disregard what Brent says about the DSL. He is so confused I don't think
it possible to get him straight at this point. Just find two identical
cards to use in your system so that you only have one driver. Compile a
kernel with only what you need and go for it. If you need help with the
cards let me know. I think I can get you two for little more then the cost
of shipping.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

Even still, the dsl modem is the device managing the static ip in most
cases, so you can't run much on your linux system without a better router
anyways. If the dsl modem uses nat, you can't do much about what inbound
traffic is allowed, as nat prevents it.
At 04:04 PM 9/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Terry,
>
>I think you have a great canidate for the job. Compile a kernel with only
>what you need and go for it. Your machine has more memory then many Cisco
>routers come with and about the same processor power.
>
>-- 
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>------------------
>
>Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
>		Alfred North Whitehead
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Terry D. Cudney]

Hi Kirk,
	Thanks for your offer! I have two cards... not identical, but I think they should work. One is a D-Link DE-220 (ISA/ne2k), the other is a 3C509b. The D-Link has the RJ45 connector for the cble modem. The 3C509b has the BNC connector for my lan which is running on coax (10base-2) not 10base-T. I don't have a hub in my lan. With the '386 running as gateway/firewall</server for dial-in connections to my lan and/or to the internet) I hope that this will work OK. Any other observations/suggestions will be appreciated.

tHANKS AGAIN,


On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kirk Wood wrote:

> Terry,
> 
> Disregard what Brent says about the DSL. He is so confused I don't think
> it possible to get him straight at this point. Just find two identical
> cards to use in your system so that you only have one driver. Compile a
> kernel with only what you need and go for it. If you need help with the
> cards let me know. I think I can get you two for little more then the cost
> of shipping.
> 
> 

-- 
		--terry

Name:	Terry D. Cudney
Phone:	(905)735-6127
E-mail:	terry@wasagacottage.com
WWW:	www.wasagacottage.com
Postal:	18 Colbeck Drive, WELLAND, ON L3C 5B5

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Frank J. Carmickle]

One thing for anyone who wants to know.  Sorry to confuse this thread
more.  Geoff made the statement that you would need two nic's to create a
gateway.  Others have eluded to this also.  This is not needed.  Unless
you are going to be using dhcp on the local subnet you can just use one
card to do this job.  You would use the ip aliasing support in the kernel
to give two addresses to one interface.  I am sure who ever would be doing
this gateway project would get the rest.  Not the best solution for some
people but hey it works.  Not very secure either.

FC

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

I thought nobody outside can access the 192.168.whatever addresses anyways.
Why bother using dhcp on the local subnet as there's more addresses under
192.168 than most people will ever use.
At 02:45 AM 9/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
>One thing for anyone who wants to know.  Sorry to confuse this thread
>more.  Geoff made the statement that you would need two nic's to create a
>gateway.  Others have eluded to this also.  This is not needed.  Unless
>you are going to be using dhcp on the local subnet you can just use one
>card to do this job.  You would use the ip aliasing support in the kernel
>to give two addresses to one interface.  I am sure who ever would be doing
>this gateway project would get the rest.  Not the best solution for some
>people but hey it works.  Not very secure either.
>
>FC
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Scott Howell]

So, what are you saying Frank, not using two nics and just ip aliasing
would be unsecure or using two nics is unsecure. Of course putting
anything on the Internet is unsecure.<G>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Frank J. Carmickle]

Amen brotha...  Puting anything on the internet is insecure.  I don't know
what the conserns would be.  I was thinking that you maybe have the chance
of hacking the interface.  Who the hell know's.  Someone?

Hey where the hell have you been lately anyway?  Did my ugly face scare
you off.  We all have been looking for you.  The reflector has been pretty
quiet these days.  So here's the plug for anyone who wants to chat.  
Point your speakfreely at lwl.braille.uwo.ca:4074

FC
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Scott Howell wrote:

> So, what are you saying Frank, not using two nics and just ip aliasing
> would be unsecure or using two nics is unsecure. Of course putting
> anything on the Internet is unsecure.<G>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Tommy Moore]

Actually Frank's right. It does help to add a second NIC as far as security goes because even though your using private ips for your boxes there's still the chance that someone can get in to your box if they know what esubnet your using by spoofing their source address.
In this way you can block certain types of traffic from entering based on the interface meaning eth0 or eth1.
This helps because you wouldn't want people accessing your samba shares from the outside would you?
You could disallow samba traffic both ways on the first NIC while letting it work on the second.
Also with this method you can be secure from the outside and be as unsecure as you wana be on the inside.

Just my opinion on this subject.

Tommy.

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

There are other reasons to use two NICs. The first one would be that it is
possible your ISP has their router mis-configured and would allow routed
information to be sent to your subnet. It may also be possible that your
local traffic is reflected elsewhere in your subnet. (This isn't too far
fetched. Sure the switch is only supposed to send your traffic to you, but
they are computers too and my computer has been known to exhibit strange
behavior on occasion.)

The upshot is that either of these situations makes your subnet appear to
some potentially unfriendly people. Is the risk high? I don't think so,
but it is not needed. Let us keep in mind that the reeason you are a
target probably has nothing to do with the information on your
box. Instead you are a target so they can use your machine to attack
someone else causing you to be suspecded by your ISP.

And for any who would doubt their ISP to put a mis-configured router on
the internet, that is what allowed Yahoo and several other major sites to
be taken down. A number of DOS attacks only work because of mis-configured
routers. (This includes allowing source routing and allowing network wide
pings to occur from outside the local net.)

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Janina Sajka]

I don't know of an isp actually providing a router for dsl in the classic
sense, though maybe the boxes they call "modems" have router type
functionality it'd still likely know how to connect only to the isp. I
have seen that some dsl providers have hacked Windows dial up networking
to support dsl -- Bell Atlantic in particular provides a software device
driver that appears to Windows as a DUN device and "dials" the connection
to the isp. I guess they do this to minimize online traffic, and to keep
ip usage under control.

If, however, you insist on a static ip and you find a provider that
supplies that, you can certainly run your linux box with its networking on
it using an ethernet nic to connect (eth0 or whatever, I suppose) to the
isp's "modem" -- which sends over the standard voice line out the other
end.

I will get to practice my theory shortly as I am moving to another
Washington DC suburb soon.
 On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Brent Harding wrote:

> 	I hear now there's another entry in the mix of dsl, "P O A. I heard linux
> doesn't have good support for it, somehow it uses the raw traffic of dsl
> with ppp, but I really don't know much about it. I think, once my isp
> starts offering it, they say they install a router, so hopefully it'd be
> good enough to handle whatever they use, but one never can tell. If it
> really is a router, and it gets the static IP I should be maintaing even
> when I get it, how can I run stuff in linux like mail, web, whatever that
> outsiders still can access? If eth0 gets the private address the router
> uses for gatewaying, http requests would be taken by the router, not the
> linux box behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 

				Janina Sajka, Director
				Information Systems Research & Development
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Janina Sajka]

It can be done over one nic. I'm doing it here now with one ip visible to
the world, and another 192.168.1.253 visible internally on my little home
network only. Look at ipchains.
 On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Geoff Shang wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> Nah your computer has the IP, as far as I know.  The router presumably
> makes sure traffic destined for you goes to you and stuff that isn't
> doesn't (DSL owners may well know more about this).  If you have a network
> then you'd need 2 cards in your gateway box, one for your LAN and one for
> the DSL.
> 
> Geoff.
> 
> 
> 

-- 

				Janina Sajka, Director
				Information Systems Research & Development
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Kirk Wood]

IP spoofing can also be used for a broader distributed DOS attack. And as
pointed out, all of your services to the internal network are possibly
invaded from the outside. With two cards, you can stop this and more
completely stop internal services from being available to external devices
via spoofing.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Tommy Moore]

Yes, this is fine for most people, but as I've stated before there's such a thing as ip spoofing so that when people connect they'll look like they've came from your internal subnet but actually their comming from somewhere else. A budy of mine proved this to me a couple of hours ago. heh, I didn't actually think he'd be able to get at the internal network, but once he started giving me machine names and shares on these machines I knew he had it. So it depends on the person and what your protecting. If it's just a couple of machines are your not a big target or anything you should be ok with on NIC, but if you've got lots of machines with criticle data better install the second one.

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Janina Sajka]

Yes, I expect it's tautological to say that two cards is safer than
one. But, there are also firewalling strategies one can employ with only
one card. In fact, I have the logs to prove it--logs which I was happy to
share with the FBI, by the bye.

 On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Kirk Wood wrote:

> IP spoofing can also be used for a broader distributed DOS attack. And as
> pointed out, all of your services to the internal network are possibly
> invaded from the outside. With two cards, you can stop this and more
> completely stop internal services from being available to external devices
> via spoofing.
> 
> 

-- 

				Janina Sajka, Director
				Information Systems Research & Development
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Scott Howell]

yup, that's why I use two nics and keep close tabs on what is happening.

Sure you can use one nic and multiple addresses, but not something I'd get
into using.  Ay its easier to setup and nics are cheap.

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Scott Howell]

Perhaps so, but I wouldn't choose this route. I believe that two nics will
prevent a greater wrisk of break-ins than one. I also believe two nics can
give one a greater flexability in setting up their network.

I can see lots of fun things with 3 nics. I think as little as nics cost,
there's not much of a compelling reason to use only one.

Maybe I am just entirely to anel about security, but then I've got reasons
to be, but no luckily no attacks as best I can tell, but still many
reasons.

Re: dsl and the confusedness

[Kirk Wood]

The thing that I would say is that while you can take measures to prevent
the problems posed when using a single NIC, I can never recomend it. There
are work arounds that are for a pinch and there are workarounds that are
as good as the original. A single NIC poses more chalenges and I can't
recomend it to a person other then as an excercise. And certainly can't
recomend it when a person isn't clear on the whole subject at hand anyway.

In reference to the ISP making DSL behave like a dial-up, I have a friend
with it. Since he is using Winblows it is fine for him. But I would
recomend any wanting linux and especially those with ideas of sharing the
connection that way to avoid this. It isn't hard, those that I am aware of
making the thing appear to DUN are using USB modems for their DSL
connection. (I would guess that the DSL modem is setup internal to present
a modem type interface on the USB port and act as a VPN interface to the
ISP. But this is a guess and they don't say on the web site I looked
at.)

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

Security on the inside, really isn't a big deal, likely, as everyone would
have physical access to all machines anyways, although, I would know if
someone got my linux box, as it'd have to be shut down to hack it at the
physical end.
At 05:40 AM 9/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Actually Frank's right. It does help to add a second NIC as far as
security goes because even though your using private ips for your boxes
there's still the chance that someone can get in to your box if they know
what esubnet your using by spoofing their source address.
>In this way you can block certain types of traffic from entering based on
the interface meaning eth0 or eth1.
>This helps because you wouldn't want people accessing your samba shares
from the outside would you?
>You could disallow samba traffic both ways on the first NIC while letting
it work on the second.
>Also with this method you can be secure from the outside and be as
unsecure as you wana be on the inside.
>
>Just my opinion on this subject.
>
>Tommy.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

Cool, they call it a router, so it must be one, whatever I might get.
Is there similar drivers for linux with the windows dun functionality?
At 02:04 PM 9/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I don't know of an isp actually providing a router for dsl in the classic
>sense, though maybe the boxes they call "modems" have router type
>functionality it'd still likely know how to connect only to the isp. I
>have seen that some dsl providers have hacked Windows dial up networking
>to support dsl -- Bell Atlantic in particular provides a software device
>driver that appears to Windows as a DUN device and "dials" the connection
>to the isp. I guess they do this to minimize online traffic, and to keep
>ip usage under control.
>
>If, however, you insist on a static ip and you find a provider that
>supplies that, you can certainly run your linux box with its networking on
>it using an ethernet nic to connect (eth0 or whatever, I suppose) to the
>isp's "modem" -- which sends over the standard voice line out the other
>end.
>
>I will get to practice my theory shortly as I am moving to another
>Washington DC suburb soon.
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Brent Harding wrote:
>
>> 	I hear now there's another entry in the mix of dsl, "P O A. I heard linux
>> doesn't have good support for it, somehow it uses the raw traffic of dsl
>> with ppp, but I really don't know much about it. I think, once my isp
>> starts offering it, they say they install a router, so hopefully it'd be
>> good enough to handle whatever they use, but one never can tell. If it
>> really is a router, and it gets the static IP I should be maintaing even
>> when I get it, how can I run stuff in linux like mail, web, whatever that
>> outsiders still can access? If eth0 gets the private address the router
>> uses for gatewaying, http requests would be taken by the router, not the
>> linux box behind it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
>-- 
>
>				Janina Sajka, Director
>				Information Systems Research & Development
>				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
>janina@afb.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: dsl and the confusedness the howto brings about various protocols

[Brent Harding]

I thought the 3-com's are expensive, maybe 70 to 80 dollars apiece.
At 07:53 PM 9/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Perhaps so, but I wouldn't choose this route. I believe that two nics will
>prevent a greater wrisk of break-ins than one. I also believe two nics can
>give one a greater flexability in setting up their network.
>
>I can see lots of fun things with 3 nics. I think as little as nics cost,
>there's not much of a compelling reason to use only one.
>
>Maybe I am just entirely to anel about security, but then I've got reasons
>to be, but no luckily no attacks as best I can tell, but still many
>reasons.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>