|
Posted by The Ghost In The Machine on July 1, 2008, 2:08 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
wrote
on Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:35:08 -0500
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
>>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/30/08
>>> 6:07 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years
>>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never
>>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip
>>>> supplier Broadcom.
>>>>
>>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature."
>>>>
>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550
>>>>
>>>> -RFH
>>>>
>>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine...
>>
>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a
>> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get
>> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It
>
> It's a gatekeeper for your physical network.
Maybe at the circuit layer.
The actual gatekeeper is a laminated door. :-P
>
> As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at
> the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into
> the rest of your physical network.
True.
>
> Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly obvious.
Not any more it's not. Look up "hub" versus "switch";
the switch makes it point-to-point. A little odd, I know,
and I frankly don't know exactly what it does in there but
I suspect switches are now vulnerable to the teardrop IP
fragmentation attack, whereas hubs were not.
Of course switches are also more efficient. ;-)
>
>> routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD.
>> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router
>> hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely
>> common anyway, making a software solution practical.
>>
>> (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.)
>>
>>> set it and, for the most
>>> part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker there is a very limited
>>> amount of functionality you expect from a router... UI issues become less
>>> important (though, obviously, still are important just not as much as, say,
>>> on a desktop computer).
>>>
>>
>> The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based.
>>
>
> Basically, a better appliance means you are less inclined to roll your own.
>
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map