"Alfredo" <alfredo@quita_esto.arrakis.es> wrote in message
news:%23WaiE$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have two segments in my lan: 172.23.10.x and 192.168.100.x
> I need a router to link them with maybe a few filters, but no more (no
VPN,
> no NAT, etc ...).
> What is the correct hardware solution? Why there isn't any cheap router to
> do this?
> I know I can do it with a 2 NIC server and RRAS server with a tunnel, but
it
> must be a hardware router.
No you wouldn't need a "tunnel" and no you wouldn't need RRAS. You could use
an old two-nic NT4 Workstation box by just enabling IP Forwarding in the
TCP/IP settings of each Nic,...and let 'er rip.
If you do it with a Server2000 or 2003 box, then it is best to use RRAS, but
there is *still* no tunnel involved.
You could also use a Linux box if you like fighting with Linux.
> All affordable routers I could see were allways
> lan to wan routers.
Worse yet, many aren't even "real" routers,...they are just NAT devices for
Internet sharing,...but that is another "soap box" for another time. An
older Cisco Router bought cheap off of E-Bay would be fine,...you just need
one with at least 2 ethernet ports. Unfortuneately as you've seen many have
only one Ether port and two Serial ports.
But I believe the old 2600 Series would be what you want. They are modular
and you simply plug in the modules you wish with the type of ports on them
you wish. I think they can take up to 4 modules (I forget, maybe it is 2)
and each module for Ethernet will typically have two ports on it. So really
you would only need one Ethernet module with a pair of Ether ports on it.
> ¿Or do I need a L3 switch? I'm confused.
> Thank you very much in advance.
We use an L3 Switch for our LAN router, I love them, they are great,....with
the chassie and all the modules ours cost $10,000.00. That probably answers
that question for you. Although, I'm sure there are cheaper ones out there.
--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
Linear Mode
