Small router for LAN segmenting...

Hi,

We are looking a cheaper way to segment our LAN than using a WindowsNT box
with two NICs. We bought a small broadband router, the Barricade but it is
so "well featured" that it fails in the basic: it does NAT on the internal
interface so the Windows 9x boxes that we attached to it can't login to the
Windows 2000 domain server (KB article 263293). There's no way to disable
NAT. Then I suppose it should be a similar box (even cheaper!) that just
makes routing between two 100MBs Ethernet NICs without any firewalling and
NAT capabilities, or at least you could disable NAT and firewalling. Looking
around on the net I've found hundreds of so called "broadband routers" on
the sub $100 price tag. Which one to test? I wonder if the "broadband"
preffix is synonymous of "NAT" so I fear to fail on the buying again...
Then
-Can you recommend me some small router for segmenting, no NAT, no
firewalling?
Any suggestion is wellcomed

Thanks in advance

--
Faustino Dina
--------------------------------------------------------
If my email address starts with two 'f'
drop the first 'f' when mailing me.

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Faustino Dina <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hi,

> We are looking a cheaper way to segment our LAN than using a WindowsNT box
> with two NICs. We bought a small broadband router, the Barricade but it is
> so "well featured" that it fails in the basic: it does NAT on the internal
> interface so the Windows 9x boxes that we attached to it can't login to the
> Windows 2000 domain server (KB article 263293). There's no way to disable
> NAT. Then I suppose it should be a similar box (even cheaper!) that just
> makes routing between two 100MBs Ethernet NICs without any firewalling and
> NAT capabilities, or at least you could disable NAT and firewalling. Looking
> around on the net I've found hundreds of so called "broadband routers" on
> the sub $100 price tag. Which one to test? I wonder if the "broadband"
> preffix is synonymous of "NAT" so I fear to fail on the buying again...
> Then
> -Can you recommend me some small router for segmenting, no NAT, no
> firewalling?
> Any suggestion is wellcomed

Any *BSD or Linux kernel dressed in a suitable pc enclosure.

( a 386 will do ! )
> Thanks in advance

> --
> Faustino Dina
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If my email address starts with two 'f'
> drop the first 'f' when mailing me.



--
Peter Håkanson
IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out,
remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.

Did you try Netgear FS605 5-Port 10/100 Fast Ethernet Switch.

It is a LAN switch (not a Hub).

I think it sells for less than $50.

Sandeep
--
http://www.EventHelix.com/EventStudio
EventStudio 2.0 - Generate Protocol Sequence Diagrams in PDF

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:56:57 -0600, "Faustino Dina"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>We are looking a cheaper way to segment our LAN than using a WindowsNT box
>with two NICs. We bought a small broadband router, the Barricade but it is
>so "well featured" that it fails in the basic: it does NAT on the internal
>interface so the Windows 9x boxes that we attached to it can't login to the
>Windows 2000 domain server (KB article 263293). There's no way to disable
>NAT. Then I suppose it should be a similar box (even cheaper!) that just
>makes routing between two 100MBs Ethernet NICs without any firewalling and
>NAT capabilities, or at least you could disable NAT and firewalling. Looking
>around on the net I've found hundreds of so called "broadband routers" on
>the sub $100 price tag. Which one to test? I wonder if the "broadband"
>preffix is synonymous of "NAT" so I fear to fail on the buying again...
>Then
>-Can you recommend me some small router for segmenting, no NAT, no
>firewalling?
>Any suggestion is wellcomed
>
>Thanks in advance


What exactly are you trying to accomplish? You mention not needing
firewalling. A cheap switch will effectively segment traffic, but you
still have a larger broadcast domain than actually creating multiple
subnets. How many PCs are we talking about, btw?

As for cheaper, it sounds like you already have a W2K server and nics
are very cheap.

-Chris