homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.182.191
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Hardware and OS Related Technologies / Webmaster Hardware
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Webmaster Hardware Forum

    
home office firewall
recommendation
smallcompany




msg:3839555
 5:54 am on Feb 1, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm thinking about to replace the existing router with the hardware based firewall with no wireless option.

An optimal number of RJ-45 connectors (for inside network) would be 5-6. I know that many Pro firewalls come with one connector only, but I'm just trying to evade the wire clutter and simplify things.

Any recommendation from your personal experience would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

tangor




msg:3839590
 7:50 am on Feb 1, 2009 (gmt 0)

google firewall "firewall network router rj 45" and get about a dozen... most are 8 port which should fill the bill.

Can we recommend specific brands?

smallcompany




msg:3839971
 1:42 am on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks.

I see that Netgear, Hotbrick, Sonicwall, and WatchGuard are popular brands.
I also see that many of those come with VPN this and that which I don't really need.

Replies backed by personal experience would be appreciated.

kaled




msg:3840003
 3:08 am on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you get a wireless router, you can disable the wireless part.

I would be inclined to ask yourself exactly what you want a firewall to do - the chances are that the features you want will be found in common routers.

Since I installed a wireless router with firewall, ZoneAlarm hasn't recorded a single attempted intrusion. That was over a year ago and the router was a cheap TP-Link model.

Kaled.

smallcompany




msg:3844269
 4:30 am on Feb 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks.

I don't want wireless at all, regardless how well it can be disabled.

What I need is 6-8 port device that can hide my small network behind the public IP address. I also need a good port traffic control and monitoring, and probably VPN option as well.

When I browsed around few moths ago I found that a firewall appliance could be way better fit. I just wanted to hear if anyone used any...

Terabytes




msg:3844284
 5:48 am on Feb 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've used watchgard in corporate and home environments. The interface is very easy to use, and the hardware is robust. It can be configured for just about any application need (VPN, VoIP, etc). The device also has some wonderful reporting options.

(I wish I had one for home)

The Edge e-series is their small'ish line and would fill your requirements nicely. However I believe it's only 5 Ports so that may not make the cut. (supports a max of 50 concurrent users).

Perhaps I've been lucky but I've never had 1-bit of trouble with these firewalls. (they will probably all fail tonight now that I've said that)

Best of luck on your search...

Tera

[edited by: Terabytes at 5:57 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2009]

dbdev




msg:3853334
 7:12 pm on Feb 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Linksys RVS4000 ($140 CAD)... I installed this on 10 of my clients' networks.

Great for port forwarding, DMZ (for isolating FTP servers, etc..), DYNDNS support (outbound mailhop), VPN, fully managed.. a great piece of equipment that is really simple to use.

smallcompany




msg:3853670
 2:47 am on Feb 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Linksys RVS4000

Mmmm... so close, but I need at least 6 ports, 5 for different physical locations, and 6th for GB network storage.

Thanks

bill




msg:3853690
 4:35 am on Feb 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Get an old PC, drop in another NIC card, and install one of the Linux distros like IPCop, ClarkConnect or the like that are made specifically for this. Instant hardware firewall.

smallcompany




msg:3853698
 5:10 am on Feb 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks, but that was applicable when I was 19 :)

Now I want to save space and forget about dust. This thing would be installed in the storage room where all the wiring is. Mounted onto the wall.

I just came across one that fits perfectly, but never heard of that brand:

TP-Link TL-R4299G

2 WAN links for double speed and failover - great
8 GB internal ports - all covered
port management - super to control kids
limited VPN (pass-through only) - I can live with that

But there are no reviews, complaints, nothing.

The price is bit over $200 which is kind of worrying for such product.

Anybody heard of TP-Link?

Thanks

dbdev




msg:3856733
 4:24 pm on Feb 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Mmmm... so close, but I need at least 6 ports, 5 for different physical locations, and 6th for GB network storage.

This should do the trick...

Cisco Small Business RV082 VPN Router ($299 CAD)

smallcompany




msg:3857086
 11:01 pm on Feb 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Except that the switch part is 10/100. I need GB unless I change my mind about NAS.

Do you have any experience with GB NAS devices? I read they're slow.

Thanks

dbdev




msg:3857437
 1:32 pm on Feb 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm just trying to evade the wire clutter

Each link must be 50 feet to get gig rated speeds over copper (5E or 6). You can't just plug in a 2 foot CAT6 patch cord between two gig devices and get gig speed. It doesn't work like that. And you can't just "coil" the cable up either. Check the TIA standards.

Your other option (and way more expensive) is using fiber cable with a fibre switch. That's the only cable that can do gig under 50 feet.

smallcompany




msg:3857521
 4:02 pm on Feb 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

50 feet

Thanks a lot. That fact helps in resolving the issue I guess. The internal wiring has already been done, and it's CAT5e I believe.

smallcompany




msg:3857605
 5:32 pm on Feb 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

... but I'm not finding the support fro that 50 feet claim. The only issue people complain about is if they don;t have CAT5e or CAT6. Otherwise their network works fine at 1GB.

dbdev




msg:3857614
 5:56 pm on Feb 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Otherwise their network works fine at 1GB

Yes it will still "work". But not at actual gig speeds. Just because the little icon says "Connected at 1Gbps" and the green light is illuminated doesn't mean a thing...

I have a $75K worth of fibre and copper testing equipment along with contracts to audit installations and perform preventative maintenance on networks for corporate and government clients.

On a cable that is less than 50 feet, if you test the "link" it will not give you gig speed because of alien cross talk.

Alien cross talk is distortion between the 4 pairs of signals that occurs with simultaneous sending and recieving whereby the frequency of the cable is too high and creates distortion resulting in data loss.

A cable that is 50 feet minimum provides enough resistance to limit the distortion and enable the gbps throughput.

50 feet is incorrect.. it should actually be 54 feet minimum because some pairs are twisted tighter than others and therefore the individual strand lengths vary.

Mike.

P.S. The TOS of this forum doesn't allow for email content however I can assure you that I have an email from the President of BICSI that spells it out.

smallcompany




msg:3858031
 5:33 am on Feb 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

On a cable that is less than 50 feet, if you test the "link" it will not give you gig speed because of alien cross talk

What speed to you get then? Is it still worth to get Gig capable device (maybe I can get half Gig speed)?

For example, my local Internet service provider has packages that are 10, 30, and 50 Mbps respectively.
Not that I'm excited about it, but just thinking what would happen if I switch from existing 10 to any of the two higher ones. Would that be supported while calculating that alien crosstalk in?

Like, what was the max speed on the CAT 5e cable that was 30 feet?

Thanks for Pro info.

dbdev




msg:3858174
 1:42 pm on Feb 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

For example, my local Internet service provider has packages that are 10, 30, and 50 Mbps respectively.
Not that I'm excited about it, but just thinking what would happen if I switch from existing 10 to any of the two higher ones. Would that be supported while calculating that alien crosstalk in?

That's an issue of throttling and not alien cross talk. Throttling is bandwidth control and limitation by the ISPs hardware devices. The cable type copper or fibre doesn't matter if your being throttled by the ISP. You could have an entire fibre trunk straight to the front door of Ma Bell and only get 10 Mbps if that's what they set as your bandwidth limitation.

What speed to you get then?

Too many factors come into play to know without testing the cable and the link. Speeds vary by cable manufacturer, connector type, quality/number/type of twists, electrical interference, etc..)

Is it still worth to get Gig capable devices

A common misconception by IT folks is that a CAT6 cable between 2 gig devices will give gig speed.

Thanks for Pro info.

I am in no way claiming to know everything about cabling and others out there know a lot more than me. I am certified by a few cable manufacturers which allows me to offer the manufacturers 25 year warranties. Learning this stuff was forced down my throat and to tell you the truth I don't have too much interest in the subject. Just a job.

smallcompany




msg:3858413
 5:23 pm on Feb 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks.

One more question:

Considering all this, would you think that the quality of connection between the nodes (less errors) would be better if one sticks with 10/100 devices (like that Cisco/Linksys router)) inside a space that is like two floors house of near 2000 square feet?

Thanks again.

dbdev




msg:3858518
 7:15 pm on Feb 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Unless you are crimping your own connectors, the quality of connection between the nodes is not better or worse between 10/100 and 10/100/1000. The punch downs on the patch panel need to be solid as well however the patch cords come fully tested/certified from the manufacturer.

Obviously gig is better because it's 10x faster. If it's your house I would cable it with CAT6 so that it wouldn't matter if you had gig or 10/100 devices... again so long as each total cable length is 54 feet minimum. The infrastructure will be in place for when you decide to move to gig rated devices.

Plenty of times I've had to loop the cable in the cieling from one wall to the other just to use up 50 feet for a device that is 4 feet from the patch panel. In this "house" you could easily use CAT6 or 5e and get gig speeds so long as there is no serious electrical interference. You can even run it in the same conduit as bx/n power cable at 110 volts. If you get into 220 volt devices such as larger printers and such you need to keep the CAT6 cable 6 feet from the bx cable to avoid the interference.

If it's a residential/commercial property your in I would most definately do CAT6 cable with provisions for gig traffic so that it would appeal to the next renter.

smallcompany




msg:3860182
 2:50 am on Mar 1, 2009 (gmt 0)

OK.

I'll just go by assumption that I can still get speeds better than 100, at least in some connection cases.

Therefore, Gig device, like that TP-Link router, should not hurt, unless it's crap by itself. For its price, I think it's worth of try.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Hardware and OS Related Technologies / Webmaster Hardware
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved