Router/Firewall Recommendation

[Otto Haliburton]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-
> bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Eucke
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:34 AM
> To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> Subject: Re: Router/Firewall Recommendation
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Otto Haliburton" <ottohaliburton at comcast.net>
> To: <techlist at voyager.phys.utk.edu>; "'General Red Hat Linux discussion
> list'" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 6:12 AM
> Subject: RE: Router/Firewall Recommendation
> 
> 
> > here it is again, all thieves can get around all alarms on any car, but
> why
> > waste the effort on a protected car when there are many unprotected cars
> out
> > there.  People that are out to network these computers together are
> going
> to
> > waste there time on a computer behind a firewall when there are many
> > computers on the internet without one.  That's what is meant by keep it
> > simple simon (or stupid or whatever needs to go there).  If you have the
> > option of using a 3000 dollar machine as a router, good for you, but a
> > simple effective alternative is a 40 dollar router.  You get the point.
> 
> LBB?  Linux Router with stateful inspection?  Cisco "Gibson" watching your
> connection?  Guess what?  Some Jackass in the sales department just
> plugged
> a Wireless Access Point into your network without talking to anyone in IT
> and your wonderful firewall is now meaningless.  Guys, please put this
> thread to bed.  There's been alot of opinions thrown about and read by the
> people asking for them.  Let them decide which route to go and accept that
> your view may not be accepted as law...it's kinda how these things go....
> Can we get back to the business of "peer assistance" that this list is
> meant
> for and leave the "leg pissing" to other lists?
> 
> -Eucke
> 
and of course he accessed via wireless 3000 miles away, hahaha.  I hope you
get the joke.  (who cares about wireless)