Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard
From: Fredly (abc_at_email.com)
Date: 10/24/04
- Next message: Sharron R. Cox [MSFT]: "Re: Missing Emails"
- Previous message: Sharron R. Cox [MSFT]: "Re: deleting corrupt mail from exchange mailboxes"
- In reply to: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard"
- Next in thread: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard"
- Reply: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:55:32 -0500
Thank you for all of the replies!!
How important is it to have the two on seperate subnets? 10.0.0.2/10.0.0.3
vs 10.0.0.2/192.168.1.1. It will make my migration job much easier to leave
it. All traffic will pass through the proxy either way, right? I know
there is a danger of someone traveling from router to network without
passing through the proxy, but how realistic is that threat? Can someone
give me a more technical pros and cons please?
Am I worried about double NATing in the second scenario? Is that ever a
problem? I've had some techs act like it is...
Thanks.
"Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]" <marina@roos.nodontwantspam.nl.com> wrote in message
news:utSqKQbuEHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Per,
>
> I have noticed you don't like SBS very much, huh?
>
> There is a lot more that is not expected to be done on a DC besides
> installing ISA on a Domain Controller. How about installing Exchange on a
> Domain Controller, how about SQL installing on a domain controller? Even
how
> about running a website on a domain controller???
>
> Per, remember, SBS has been designed especially to do all of this on one
> box. And I can tell you that there are many SBS's outside in the whole
world
> living very happily, assuming they have been configured the right way.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Marina
> Microsoft SBS-MVP
>
> "Per W." <pwbuf@tiscali.no> schreef in bericht
> news:OVqlb5ZuEHA.4040@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Fredly" <abc@email.com> skrev i melding
> > news:u2RzOrTuEHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > If I will have a static on the outside of my DSL router doing NAT and
> give
> > > the outside card in SBS a 10.0.0.3 address and the inside a 10.0.0.2,
am
> I
> > > safe? The SBS box will then run ISA, DHCP, DNS...
> > >
> > > Three questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is it ok to use this address scheme? I do not want to put a real
> > > address on my SBS box! I will only forward in port 80, and anything
> > > needed
> > > for RWW. Does it make sense to use .3 on the outside .2 on the
inside?
> I
> > > could see seperating them but I don't want to do double NAT:
192.168.x.x
> > > on
> > > one side and 10. on the other... What is standard?
> > >
> > > 2. How much safer am I with a Watchguard or something in between the
> > > router
> > > and the SBS box?
> > >
> > > 3. If I do get a Watchguard that requires licenses and I have 50
users,
> > > do
> > > I need to buy those licenses considering the Watchguard will only see
1
> > > IP?
> > > The SBS 10.0.0.3.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > hi, i posted this in a diffrent newsgroup that you terminated your
thread
> > in, here is one off my answers.
> >
> > Not a good ide, but you can use it as a proxy/RAS etc. and have the
> > Watchguard in front. Never have the ISA as main firewall on a SBS. Take
a
> > look at
> >
>
http://www.isaserver.org/tutorials/Installing_ISA_Server_on_a_Domain_Controller.html
> >
> > /Per W.
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Sharron R. Cox [MSFT]: "Re: Missing Emails"
- Previous message: Sharron R. Cox [MSFT]: "Re: deleting corrupt mail from exchange mailboxes"
- In reply to: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard"
- Next in thread: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard"
- Reply: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: SBS ISA. NAT vs. Watchguard"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|