Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 12:46:05 -0400 From: Mark Fullmer <maf@net.ohio-state.edu> To: spork <spork@super-g.com>, "Roberts, Patrick S" <RoberPS@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM> Cc: "'Richard Archer'" <rha@interdomain.net.au>, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Support for passive backplane chassis? Message-ID: <19980801124604.A16606@net.ohio-state.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9808010442070.28996-100000@super-g.inch.com>; from spork on Sat, Aug 01, 1998 at 04:45:29AM -0400 References: <199807311935.NAA24184@stortek.stortek.com> <Pine.BSF.4.00.9808010442070.28996-100000@super-g.inch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 01, 1998 at 04:45:29AM -0400, spork wrote: > The problem with most of the switches is that it seems you lose some > security. I mean they "route", but they don't quite route. The goal is > to let no traffic of any sort pass from customer A to customer B. Does the > RSM give you control over that? Is it just a VLAN issue? How about IP > theft within the building? Yes. With an RSM Each VLAN looks like a virtual router port. If each port were a seperate VLAN, it would be just like having a high density ethernet router. To have decent performance you'll want to look at adding a nffc or an 8510. interface Vlan10 description TEST VLAN ip address 128.146.35.1 255.255.255.0 no ip directed-broadcast no ip proxy-arp no ip route-cache optimum ip route-cache flow If you're interested in accounting get a FreeBSD box to capture and process the netflow exports. -- mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980801124604.A16606>