1 |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:31, Harry Putnam <reader@×××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> This is way OT, but this list is such a great resource I suspect the |
3 |
> advice gotten here will be more to the point. ( I have posted to a |
4 |
> network hardware group as well) |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I've bumped my home lan router to a gigabit from the old 10/100 |
7 |
> (NETGEAR FVS318). |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I made the move for the gigabit lan ports mainly. That is, I was |
10 |
> happy with other aspects of the old router. I ended up with a cisco |
11 |
> RVS4000 v2. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The cisco solved the gigabit problem with 4 lan ports and even a |
14 |
> gigabit on the Internet port... (which is probably not really doing |
15 |
> any thing on a cable connection). And it wasn't hideously |
16 |
> expensive ($112.91). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I could have solved the problem with gigabit switches behind the |
19 |
> router for lan usage, just as well, and may go to that yet, and move |
20 |
> back to the old NETGEAR router. But somehow I expected the cisco to |
21 |
> be something that was `excitingly' new and fun to play with. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I'm disappointed in the cisco so far as logging is concerned. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The logs give only bare information like this: |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Mar 10 10:24:21 - [Firewall Log-PORT SCAN] TCP Packet - 60.173.11.56 --> 98.217.231.32 |
28 |
> Mar 10 10:24:21 - [Firewall Log-PORT SCAN] TCP Packet - 60.173.11.56 --> 98.217.231.32 |
29 |
> [...] |
30 |
> |
31 |
> No mention of which port is involved. Not only on port scans but |
32 |
> ports are never reported. And of course if you wanted to pursue any |
33 |
> of it by way of google, you'd need the port number. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> The Old Netgear sent logs like this (wrapped for mail): |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Sat, 2007-07-28 12:00:11 - TCP packet - Source: 161.170.244.20 - |
38 |
> Destination: 70.131.83.195 - [Invalid sequence number received with |
39 |
> Reset, dropping packet Src 443 Dst 1385 from WAN] |
40 |
> |
41 |
> ------- --------- ---=--- --------- -------- |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I went for the cisco instead of a newer `gigabit' NETGEAR after seeing |
44 |
> several bad reviews about them. And I just assumed the cisco would |
45 |
> have as good or better other features. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Another little problem is that the Cicso had reached its end of life |
48 |
> and was reported as such by cisco, well before I bought it. But of |
49 |
> course, retailers (not cisco) don't bother to give that kind of info, |
50 |
> but the result is that a kind of blackball list that was part of the |
51 |
> deal is no longer kept up to date. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> So, cutting to the chase; can anyone recommend from actual use, a home |
54 |
> lan router that has gigabit lan ports and very configurable/ |
55 |
> informative logging options? |
56 |
> |
57 |
> ps - I'm not interested in running an old linux or openbsd, machine as |
58 |
> router. Having a silent cool router the size and weight of a medium |
59 |
> book is too appealing. |
60 |
> |
61 |
|
62 |
Have you checked out Mikrotik's RB750G? 5 GbE ports: |
63 |
|
64 |
http://routerboard.com/pricelist/download_file.php?file_id=256 |
65 |
|
66 |
Mikrotik OS is Linux-based, the firewall is Netfilter-based, and it's |
67 |
Lua-scriptable. |
68 |
|
69 |
Rgds, |
70 |
-- |
71 |
Pandu E Poluan |
72 |
~ IT Optimizer ~ |
73 |
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com |