Possible to use an old computer as a Router???

[OverVolt]

Like the title says, i have an old compaq mobo, 633celly. ect ect. it's enough to get a whole rig going. i was thinking i could stick on some NIC's and get it running as a router since i'll be getting a new pc soon- and i wanna hook up some other devices into a router. I already have a 4 port router to share my dsl but i'll have some new rigs soon which would more than fill 4 ports.

What would i need in order to get an old pc running as a router. what OS and stuff would be good? just let me know.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Your best option is probably to hook a switch up to your current router.

A 633 celery is old :Q

I use a pentium 133 to share a connection between 2 desktop/tower machines (give or take a few) and as a wireless access point for my laptop. So this is definitely do-able. I recommend Linux or a BSD for it instead of Windows though, but its still do-able using Windows, I just dont know how

 

[Nighthawk69]

Yeah! Setup that machine with a Linux distro and start reading up on sharing the connection and setting up the firewall how you want it. Linux is the only way to go in this case as it gives you so much control, but in order to use a professional tool, you must put the time in to learn to use it properly first.

Good luck!

 

[Ime]

I didn't want to spend the money on buying a hardware firewall for my cable modem connection at work, so I took an old Pentium 166 and installed FreeSCO on it. Works like a champ!

 

[OverVolt]

Sounds like a good deal with the FREESCO. Anybody know how much you can pick up a copy of linux for?

EDIT: might run win98 on there too it's possible to use two OS's and choose which to boot from right?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: OverVolt
Sounds like a good deal with the FREESCO. Anybody know how much you can pick up a copy of linux for?

EDIT: might run win98 on there too it's possible to use two OS's and choose which to boot from right?

Anywhere between free and $140 for desktopish versions.

 

[edfcmc]

with that kind of computing firepower check out:

Link to Clarkconnect.org

Clark connect is redhat based linux router/firewall pretty much an automatic install and it comes with a web based configuration tool... Anyways, check it out... its free to use.. just download the ISO image from the site.

 

[stash]

Also check out astaro security linux, a similar distro.

 

[Nighthawk69]

Or the Linux Router Project...

 

[groovin]

Originally posted by: OverVolt
Sounds like a good deal with the FREESCO. Anybody know how much you can pick up a copy of linux for?

EDIT: might run win98 on there too it's possible to use two OS's and choose which to boot from right?

just download a copy someplace ( i use redhat 8). yes u can, youll need partitions for windows, linux, and swap (and any more if u want storage drives to mount in linux).

what i did was install win2k on the first partition as FAT32 (in case i wanted to access it from linux later) first, and then i installed linux on the second with a small swap partition as the 3rd. i chose the GRUB boot loader... it lists Red Hat 8 and then DOS. pick, dos, it boots to windows.

 

[MedicBob]

Any firewall should be dedicated to that task only. I used SmoothWall, FreeSCO, Clark Connect, and IP Cop for awhile each. I personally liked SmoothWall/IP Cop.

When you start running other services then just the firewall, you are looking to develop security holes.

 

[skyking]

Any firewall should be dedicated to that task only.

I agree with that. I would not waste a 667 celly on this job. Any old p120 and 32 mb of simm ram will do fine, and a 1 gig drive is sufficient for a stripped down install of freebsd or something similar. The only other services I'd run on my firewall is DHCP and NAT, and "maybe" a nameserver.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: skyking

Any firewall should be dedicated to that task only.

I agree with that. I would not waste a 667 celly on this job. Any old p120 and 32 mb of simm ram will do fine,

Reliability on some of these old machines is questionable, but definitely not a bad choice.

and a 1 gig drive is sufficient for a stripped down install of freebsd or something similar.

I ran OpenBSD on a ~237mB hard drive with source and enough room to build it for a while.

The only other services I'd run on my firewall is DHCP and NAT, and "maybe" a nameserver.

In one statement you say that the firewall should not run anything else and in another you mention running one of the worst possible things you can run on a firewall? No. DNS is a bad idea. NAT is part of firewalling at this point, DHCP is not necessary for small LANs, and BIND (the standard in DNS) has a horrible history. dhcpd and named are not meant for use on a firewall. Period.

 

[skyking]

In one statement you say that the firewall should not run anything else and in another you mention running one of the worst possible things you can run on a firewall? No. DNS is a bad idea. NAT is part of firewalling at this point, DHCP is not necessary for small LANs, and BIND (the standard in DNS) has a horrible history. dhcpd and named are not meant for use on a firewall. Period.

I should have left it out (DNS) entirely, rather than put quotes around it. As for DHCP, I know of no vulnerabilities it introduces when properly configured in regards to the outside interface. People look for a similar functionality in these home brewed solutions, when comparing them to store bought router/firewalls.
Edit: My aggreement with a dedicated firewall was more directed at NOT making a dual-boot out of it

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: skyking

In one statement you say that the firewall should not run anything else and in another you mention running one of the worst possible things you can run on a firewall? No. DNS is a bad idea. NAT is part of firewalling at this point, DHCP is not necessary for small LANs, and BIND (the standard in DNS) has a horrible history. dhcpd and named are not meant for use on a firewall. Period.

I should have left it out (DNS) entirely, rather than put quotes around it. As for DHCP, I know of no vulnerabilities it introduces when properly configured in regards to the outside interface. People look for a similar functionality in these home brewed solutions, when comparing them to store bought router/firewalls.
Edit: My aggreement with a dedicated firewall was more directed at NOT making a dual-boot out of it

There have been vulnerabilities in dhcpd. Oh well

 

[skyking]

(starts digging into his firewall rules)