Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- From: "Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 18:54:36 -0500
Yes, it would be redundant. But then again so is having two power supplies
and redundant disks ;-).
About the only circumstance where you'd purposely avoid two nics would be if
you're using your hardware device as a VPN endpoint. You don't *have* to go
with two nics, but it does give you some additional flexibility, such as an
internet connection point that's outside your lan - which is handy in quite
a few circumstances.
--
Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
-----------------------------------------------------------
SBS Rocks !
----------------------
"Tell me and I'll forget. Show me and I'll remember. Involve me and I'll
understand." - Confucius
"Daveinfla" <Daveinfla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:483EFD95-8392-486F-984C-3565DA6C51CF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Got it, with this in mind using 2 NIC's and the basic firewall (Standard
Edition) behind a Firebox would be redundant?
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:
a firewall does not just open/close ports, it inspects traffic travelling
through open connections and only allows them to remain open if defined
criteria are met. One of the reasons I prefer SBS Premium is due to ISA
'Application layer' traffic filtering. This means that you can control
not
only the type of traffic but exactly which process requests it. Opening a
port is not necessarily opening a port :-)
"Daveinfla" <Daveinfla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:644E279C-963B-4F19-A1B1-0CF37BFD8C24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's a firebox, but can you elaborate a bit on the difference?
I know a True firewall gives added protection, but opening a port is
opening
a port NAT or no NAT, isn't it?
And what does the 2 NIC option provide behind a NAT firewall?
Thanks,
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:
The desirability for a 2 NIC setup depends largely on the capabilities
of
the 'firewall' device.
If it is a true firewall device there is little benefit in running a
two
NIC
solution. (Read WatchGuard FireBox, Cisco PIX or similar)
If it is a simple NAT router (which many incorrectly refer to as a
firewall)
a 2NIC solution is desirable.
"Daveinfla" <Daveinfla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B9A64BB6-E454-4123-B2E9-6D66E52E83A8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Setting up a new SBS 2003 Standard server (is that redundant?),
which
has
two
NIC's, however the 2nd is currently disabled since it's behind a
hardware
firewall/VPN router.
Plans are to allow OWA, and possibly host a website in the future;
all
other
traffic will be via VPN.
Is there any reason to use the 2nd NIC and the built-in firewall on
SBS?
Thanks
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- From: Daveinfla
- Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- References:
- Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- Prev by Date: Re: URGENT - System State Restore - SBS
- Next by Date: Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- Previous by thread: Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- Next by thread: Re: Any reason for 2nd NIC w/hardware firewall?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|