Re: Multiple NICs in server
From: Matt Gibson (mattg_at_blueedgetech.ca)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: Darius Tabiolo: "Network browsing problem"
- Previous message: Mr. Smith: "Re: Multiple NICs in server"
- In reply to: Mr. Smith: "Re: Multiple NICs in server"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multiple NICs in server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:01:40 -0800
I don't get what you're getting at.
Yes, sometimes two NICs are needed. In your case, an argument could be made
that using two NICs isn't secure, because that server could potentially act
as a bridge between two different security zones.
And the OP in question doesn't want to do what you stated, so I don't see
your point.
Matt Gibson - GSEC
"Mr. Smith" <backup@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uEC5NhOKFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>* PFFFFFT*
>
> Let's say he wants to just do secure file transfers on another network
> other than the one he's on. I would like to shape some traffic in my case
> and use the 2nd NIC's to have a file sharing / printer network. This
> network would be on a switch to itself for many of things, such as using
> SNMP in a secured network that doesn't traverse other data; this would
> limit anyone sniffing out data that is being transferred over the main
> user network.
>
>
>
>
>
> A network isn't the machines / OSes that are on it. It's the network.
>
> You want to build your network(s) first then put your machines on it.
>
> Crazy Example
>
>
>
> ((INTERNET)) -to- (FIREWALL)) -to- ((DMZ)) -to- ((ROUTER)) -to-
>
> (SWITCH 01)
>
> 192.168.1.0/24
>
> (SWITCH 02)
>
> 10.0.0.0/24
>
> (SWITCH 03)
>
> 10.0.10.0/24
>
> And so on. Each of these switches will be a network to them self:
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Next message: Darius Tabiolo: "Network browsing problem"
- Previous message: Mr. Smith: "Re: Multiple NICs in server"
- In reply to: Mr. Smith: "Re: Multiple NICs in server"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multiple NICs in server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|