Rodolfo J. Paiz said:
> Hey, maybe not! Going on duncan brown's comment about spending $75 per
> tenant on a small Netgear router, those do masquerading, right? So if I
> went that route, then they each have their individual subnet but *I* get
> all traffic coming from a single IP address! At that point I *can*
> simply plug all tenants into the switch, and do traffic
> shaping/limiting based on the IP address, and only use two NIC's in the
> central server. Eliminates the DHCP requirement, and I can also filter
> by MAC address for additional security.
>
> I'm starting to like that idea more and more.
yeah, i had a computer in my home office room that was doing routing
(basically an ethernet bridge), dhcpd, bind and all kinds of stuff.
really expensive on the power, too... and then i just said 'fuck it', went
out and got an ethernet bridge and a hub.
just because you can do it and make it complicated under linux doesn't
mean that you need to. =] some things that don't require microsoft also
don't require linux =]
though, why wouldn't you need dhcpd? you'll still have to serve out ips
to your ''customers''...
-d
+( duncan brown : duncanbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx )+
+( linux "just works" : www.linuxadvocate.net )+
--------------------------------------------------
Understatement of the century:
"Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing
a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be
big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT
clones"
- Linus Torvalds, August 1991
--------------------------------------------------
