Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- From: "Bill Grant" <not.available@online>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:23:17 +1100
A DMZ is behind a firewall. The real difference is what is between the DMZ and the private LAN. If you use the back-to-back firewall model there is an additional firewall between the DMZ and the private LAN.
The best candidates for a DMZ are servers which need to be accessed routinely from the Internet but only occasionally or never from the LAN. Some people like to put things like Exchange or remote access servers in a DMZ but I don't like the idea. It means that you have to open up the inner firewall to allow client machines acccess to the servers in the DMZ.
"BrianMultiLanguage" <BrianMultiLanguage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:10EBFA78-700A-43F9-8C3B-0C28DC514887@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What is a very good reason to put a server, such as a RRAS or any server, on
a DMZ instead of behind a firewall?
Thanks for the input.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- From: RIQUADENT
- Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- Prev by Date: Re: DHCP workstations can't access internet Static can
- Next by Date: W2K3 Dual Nic and 2 ISPs
- Previous by thread: DCpromo issue
- Next by thread: Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading