Re: Two Nics really needed?
From: Merv Porter [SBS-MVP] (mwport_at_no_spam_hotmail.com)
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: SBSuser: "Re: Two Nics really needed?"
- Previous message: JohnJump: "Network Relocation Questions"
- In reply to: SBSuser: "Two Nics really needed?"
- Next in thread: SBSuser: "Re: Two Nics really needed?"
- Reply: SBSuser: "Re: Two Nics really needed?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:47:07 -0500
Security in layers... 2 NICs are a better insurance policy. If your PIX is
breached, your entire LAN is exposed. If you implemented SBS 2000 with 2
NICs, you could have ISA running in "integrated (firewall) mode" on the
server. This gives you the PIX as the first line of defense and ISA on the
external NIC as a second line of defense. Of course, there's a learning
curve with ISA and the complexity of administering your network is
marginally increased. But it all comes down to risk assessment.
-- Merv Porter [SBS MVP] =================================== "SBSuser" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0b6301c4ef55$7d385940$a401280a@phx.gbl... > I have the following scenario: > T-1 Router - Cisco PIX firewall - Switch - Server and > Workstations > The PIX, server and WS's connect to the Switch. > > The PIX connects EThernet 0 to Internet thru the router > and connects Ethernet 1(internal) to the Switch > > My boss insists I need to implement two Nic's on the SBS > server. I think we do not need it. > > What's your opinion? >
- Next message: SBSuser: "Re: Two Nics really needed?"
- Previous message: JohnJump: "Network Relocation Questions"
- In reply to: SBSuser: "Two Nics really needed?"
- Next in thread: SBSuser: "Re: Two Nics really needed?"
- Reply: SBSuser: "Re: Two Nics really needed?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading