• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lab Router Question

erwos

Diamond Member
So, I'm basically in charge of about 35 computers in our lab (in the sense that it's a "real lab" where we do science and simulations). We've been using a Juniper Netscreen XT, but I really think we've outgrown it to a large extent - we bounce against the "10 active computers" limit quite often these days, and I really don't want to spend $800 upgrading it to the "elite" firmware. I was hoping someone might be able to recommend a router based on the following needs:
1. Must be able to handle mapping incoming ports to different computers - ie, 22 might go to 192.168.1.X, but 23 might go to 192.168.1.Y. Bonus points for being able to alter maps based on the client's hostname (eg, extmachine.com goes to computer X when it comes in on port 22, but extmachine2.com goes to computer Y).
2. No limits on incoming/outgoing connections, beyond hardware constraints. We got burned by the Netscreen's 10 machine limit, and I'm still upset about it.
3. Not required, but nice to have: static DHCP.
4. Easy web management is a must - we can't rely on me always being here to teach other people how to use the system in depth.
5. A nice bonus would be user and group objects for use with rules (the one thing I loved about the Netscreen), but it's not a must-have.
6. I don't care at all about VPN or wireless access.
7. Gigabit LAN ports would be good, but not required. The external interface needs to be 10/100 or better, though.
8. Preferred price range is less than $700, the smaller the better.
9. Should be able to redirect internal->external->internal queries properly (eg, an internal machine queries a hostname which resolves to the external IP of the router. The internal machine tries to access that IP address. The router should forward this http request properly to the web server instead of going to the router configuration page). I don't know why most routers I've used seem to be incapable of doing this.

Thanks for the help! I'm simply not up to speed on current networking hardware, since system administration is not my primary responsibility around here.

-Erwos
 
#9 is going to be a deal breaker for most routers. I would recommend a linux based router otherwise.
 
I can live without 9 - we get around it right now by modifying our hosts file appropriately. It looks as if the WRT54GS with DD-WRT firmware might be an OK fit for what I want, and it's cheap enough that if it doesn't work out, we haven't lost much...

-Erwos
 
Might I make a suggestion?

Can you elminate all that complexity? What exactly are you trying to do and what does the rest of the network look like (lans, wans, security, administration, servers, etc)
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Can you elminate all that complexity? What exactly are you trying to do and what does the rest of the network look like (lans, wans, security, administration, servers, etc)
If I could eliminate it, I would. As for the exact network topology, I can't disclose that because of security reasons. Sorry.

We do a lot of work with outside collaborators. We simply need those features.

-Erwos
 
well I can do all but the web interface in recommending an Imagestream Transport will cost about $800 has 3 10/100 ports but unlimited connections, uses linux IPchains/ IPtables so everything else is doable.
 
You could do all that with an old P2 and iptables preatty easy, except maybe the web GUI. Might check monowall or smoothwall, as they both have web interfaces. Most if this would actually be pretty easy in *nix.
 
I would also have to say that many of your requirements are rather contradictory.
For example, why 10/100 or better? I woudl assume somethign like Fiber would be incompatible.

I have a sokeris box that can do everything that you stated except for no. 9, because I really don't understand that point.


...unless you are talking about revers DNs in which case all that matters is legit PTR records....
 
I think #9 would be solved with internal DNS, or moving the web based config to a non standard port (which it should be anyway) and fowarding port 80.
 
Like everyone else has said, m0n0wall will do everything you want except #9.

I believe pfSense (a fork of m0n0wall), can do #9, but I believe it needs to be run on beefier hardware than m0n0wall. pfSense is nearing the end of it's beta phase. http://www.pfsense.com
 
Originally posted by: ssbpgsr
Like everyone else has said, m0n0wall will do everything you want except #9.

I believe pfSense (a fork of m0n0wall), can do #9, but I believe it needs to be run on beefier hardware than m0n0wall. pfSense is nearing the end of it's beta phase. http://www.pfsense.com

pfsense is nice...

it nearly made me send my soekris 48081 back because it ran like crap on it. as it turns out it is indeed meant for better hardware, but until recently, that wasn't explicitly stated.

that said, it was REALLY nice, even if it made my transfers fall to 2KB/s😉
 
Back
Top