Wither simple ethernet-ethernet routers?

We are a small shop that has two locations currently connected by a pair of cisco 1601 (ethernet/serial only) routers driving a T-1. We are wanting to change our connection from the T-1 to a wireless connection provided by a local ISP. This new connection is provided to us as an ethernet. As we are using different IP subnets in both locations we need to replace our ciscos.

Whatever happened to cheap two port ethernet routers? Everything I've seen is focused on broadband. We have no need of firewall capabilities. We have no need of PPPoE. Being able to establish a IPSec VPN tunnel between two of them might be nice (but not neccessary as the ISP is already encrypting the data transparently for us). All we need is is two ethernet ports (100mb) and enough routing sense to redirect traffic (probably via higher metric static routes) to our checkpoint box (which will establish a VPN tunnel through the internet as a backup) when the wireless connection goes down.

My solution is a NetBSD powered pc with two ethernet cards in it, but there is some reluctance by the powers that be on that. It would be preferable that if I get run over by a beer truck that somebody might have a chance of figuring out what I cobbled up.

Reply to
Frank Stutzman
Loading thread data ...

a lot of them also support "just routing" - i have a wireless netgear router (because it was cheaper than an access point at the time) - it can act as a

2 port Ethernet router.

But - it is pretty brain dead if you want it to do anything subtle.

We have no need of firewall capabilities.

use another checkpoint as a router by allowing everything? - after all a Nokia IPSO box is just hardened unix inside....

alt - 2 port 100M software routers from cisco - the new 1841 / 2801s would do the job - and since they are standard enterprise gear you will be able to find engineers who know them, get support / install / setup and maint.

They will be an order of magnitude more expensive than a SOHO box, but higher throughput and more features.

If you want 100M throughput (rather than just connecting to a 100M port, but with lower actual data flows), then you would be better off with an Ethernet "layer 3 switch" - which is basically an ethernet only router with hardware acceleration to give wire speed throughput.

Again if you want / put up with cisco, then a Catalyst 3550 - lots of other makes around.

i use a lot of cisco gear at work, so i know that fairly well - so i guess i am biased.

Reply to

Take one of the cisco's, and create two (or more if needed) TAGGED vlans on the one ethernet port. Plug in a managed switch that supports vlans. (there are fairly cheap ones made by netgear if you do not already own one) set one port to be on both TAGGED vlans, and plug that port into the cisco ethernet port. Take two other ports on the switch and configure those each to be UNTAGGED members of one of each of the two vlans.

Using this technique you can make a single ethernet port router have as many ports as you want via a managed layer 2 switch.

T Sean weintz

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

Then reuse one of your cisco's if they ony have one ethernet port it's no problem, configure with an ip from one of your nets, then add a "secondary" address from the other net.

Your idea with a *BSD is also very good ( in fact slighty better if not for backup/reliability ). If your powers don't like it, get an used 1600 with two ethernet ports.

Reply to

Perhaps they were done in by the broadband stuff. Some of those firewall router boxes can be configured as just a simple router. Are you worried about having an extra 3 ports on the one side?

For example, I have an SMC router, that can be configured to bypass NAT and not use firewall filtering.

Reply to
James Knott

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.