[CS-FSLUG] Building An Experimental LAN

[Don Parris]

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:55 PM, sjm <sjm.mlists at gmail.com> wrote:

> be confusing, but that's a hassle I can live with.  One of the major goals,
>> again, is to divide my LAN into 2, maybe 3 subnets - and really play with
>> the routing and switching options.
>>
>
> You actually can run several subnets mixed on the same network.  VLANs
> help separate that, but it all depends on what you want to do.  Can you
> draw a quick diagram of things you're thinking about?
>
>
I get the subnetting pretty darned well now.  I still ain't all that fast,
but I can plan my subnets, even using VLSM pretty much by thinking through
the calculations in my head.  :-)  Of course, wait until next month, after
I have not had to subnet anything.  :-(

I am thinking to separate out the server from the workstations and laptops,
or maybe the wired from the wireless systems.  Alternatively, his-n-hers
subnets.  :-D


>
>  One thing I would like to be able to do is to run:
>> <> Firewall/Proxy server (Isn't this where switches and routers start
>> coming into play more?)
>>
>
> Yes & no.  A pure router doesn't do any firewalling.  Technically, a proxy
> server is a *server*, not a network device.
>
>
Yeah, I do still know the difference between routers and servers, but I
wanted to give an idea of my infrastructure - what I want to do.    I get
the impression, both from techies and marketing materials, that most
routers are offering VPN, security, etc. these days.  Even managed switches
seem to get promoted as a first line of defense - Extreme networks offers
switches with intrusion detection capabilities.  Shouldn't that be the role
of an ids on a server box (traditionally speaking)?




>
> While all these might be part of the network infrastructure of a place,
> they all sit at a level (or few) above the routing and switching.
>
> Yeah, that's what we studied in the class.  I do get the differences at
the basic level.  But the network devices seem to be getting more and more
advanced these days.


>
>  Some say build a Linux firewall.  Others say that's what routers are for.
>> In fact, the main reason (as I understand it) for dedicated routers is
>> that
>> their flash drive is faster than standard hard disks.  But if I get a box
>> with a solid state drive, wouldn't that overcome most of that issue?
>>
>
> Well, and they have dedicated switching/routing hardware that can handle
> much higher throughput (think a 48port Gb switch with all ports running at
> close to full saturation).


I think this drives more at the gist of my question than anything else.
When I look at managed switches, they all seem to have at least 24 ports,
when I really only need about 8 (at most).  Still, at least a Cisco router
would get me using their interface.  Even so, why not just a linux box with
2-4 ports as a router?  Is it more important to know Cisco or more
important to know networking?


>
>
>  If any of what I am saying doesn't make sense - just be patient with me.
>> Again, partly, I want to play with Cisco and get more familiar with the
>> interface (beyond Packet Tracer, which is still a great tool).  But also
>> to
>> put my networking skills to use by planning and implementing my LAN.
>>
>
> It depends what you are looking for.  As Tim mentioned, the languages are
> slightly different between the venders.  If you are looking to understand
> more the concepts, then another vender like HP might not cost as much and
> still give you the practice in the concepts.  If you want to practice more
> the Cisco language as well, then you will need to pay the higher price for
> the Cisco boxes.
>
> sjm
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20121208/90f50b0a/attachment.htm>