nanog mailing list archives
RE:
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:38:54 -0700
I'm looking similarly, but T1/PRI for dial-in support and a T3 to the Internet. Got Cisco 6509 on the Internet side and Ascend MAX 6000 on the WAN side. Bothe managed by Checkpoint, on a Sun Ultra5.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of Gerry McDonald Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 9:13 AM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: I have a question... I am currently expanding our network to accommodate a T1 to the Internet and a 512K frame connection to our WAN.. I need to purchase a router and spoke to several vendors. I have heard conflicting stories regarding the model of Cisco router I should get. One vendor <vendor a> tells me that I should get a 2620 with 2 Wan Ports and the other vendor <vendor b> is telling me that I might compromise my security by using one router for WAN and Internet connections. Their suggesting that I get 2 routers one for my Wan and another for the Internet connection... Vendor B is telling me that it would be possible to enter our wan without touching our firewall should someone be able to hack into our IOS on the router... I decided to go the experts... I would appreciate any helpful suggestions. Thanks... -Gerry
Current thread:
- [no subject] Gerry McDonald (Sep 21)
- RE: Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 21)
- RE: Mike Leber (Sep 22)
- RE: Derek Balling (Sep 22)
- NANOG applicability (was: RE: ) dave o'leary (Sep 23)
- Re: NANOG applicability (was: RE: ) Majdi Abbas (Sep 23)
- Re: NANOG applicability (was: RE: ) john heasley (Sep 23)
- Re: NANOG applicability (was: RE: ) Sean Butler (Sep 23)
- RE: Mike Leber (Sep 22)
- RE: Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 21)
- Re: your mail Stephen Sprunk (Sep 22)
- Re: your mail Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 22)
- Re: your mail Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 22)