1 |
This is way OT, but this list is such a great resource I suspect the |
2 |
advice gotten here will be more to the point. ( I have posted to a |
3 |
network hardware group as well) |
4 |
|
5 |
I've bumped my home lan router to a gigabit from the old 10/100 |
6 |
(NETGEAR FVS318). |
7 |
|
8 |
I made the move for the gigabit lan ports mainly. That is, I was |
9 |
happy with other aspects of the old router. I ended up with a cisco |
10 |
RVS4000 v2. |
11 |
|
12 |
The cisco solved the gigabit problem with 4 lan ports and even a |
13 |
gigabit on the Internet port... (which is probably not really doing |
14 |
any thing on a cable connection). And it wasn't hideously |
15 |
expensive ($112.91). |
16 |
|
17 |
I could have solved the problem with gigabit switches behind the |
18 |
router for lan usage, just as well, and may go to that yet, and move |
19 |
back to the old NETGEAR router. But somehow I expected the cisco to |
20 |
be something that was `excitingly' new and fun to play with. |
21 |
|
22 |
I'm disappointed in the cisco so far as logging is concerned. |
23 |
|
24 |
The logs give only bare information like this: |
25 |
|
26 |
Mar 10 10:24:21 - [Firewall Log-PORT SCAN] TCP Packet - 60.173.11.56 --> 98.217.231.32 |
27 |
Mar 10 10:24:21 - [Firewall Log-PORT SCAN] TCP Packet - 60.173.11.56 --> 98.217.231.32 |
28 |
[...] |
29 |
|
30 |
No mention of which port is involved. Not only on port scans but |
31 |
ports are never reported. And of course if you wanted to pursue any |
32 |
of it by way of google, you'd need the port number. |
33 |
|
34 |
The Old Netgear sent logs like this (wrapped for mail): |
35 |
|
36 |
Sat, 2007-07-28 12:00:11 - TCP packet - Source: 161.170.244.20 - |
37 |
Destination: 70.131.83.195 - [Invalid sequence number received with |
38 |
Reset, dropping packet Src 443 Dst 1385 from WAN] |
39 |
|
40 |
------- --------- ---=--- --------- -------- |
41 |
|
42 |
I went for the cisco instead of a newer `gigabit' NETGEAR after seeing |
43 |
several bad reviews about them. And I just assumed the cisco would |
44 |
have as good or better other features. |
45 |
|
46 |
Another little problem is that the Cicso had reached its end of life |
47 |
and was reported as such by cisco, well before I bought it. But of |
48 |
course, retailers (not cisco) don't bother to give that kind of info, |
49 |
but the result is that a kind of blackball list that was part of the |
50 |
deal is no longer kept up to date. |
51 |
|
52 |
So, cutting to the chase; can anyone recommend from actual use, a home |
53 |
lan router that has gigabit lan ports and very configurable/ |
54 |
informative logging options? |
55 |
|
56 |
ps - I'm not interested in running an old linux or openbsd, machine as |
57 |
router. Having a silent cool router the size and weight of a medium |
58 |
book is too appealing. |