Honeypots mailing list archives
Re: {Spam?} Honeywall running on SPARC?
From: Haris Koutsouris <harisk () epmhs gr>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:53:30 +0300
exactly my point. Furthermore, i had in mind an sbus architecture while an ultra 5 has pci bus which makes it feasible to add extra ethernets.
But i still wonder if it makes any sence to pursue any other architectures than i386 or perhaps X86_64. I think it would be a waste of resources. Any thoughts ???
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:53:55 +0300, Haris Koutsouris said:I wonder though how you can solve the 3-NICs (actually 2) requirement problem. I have rarely seen sparcs with more than one nic.Perhaps true for the workstation configurations, but it's not at all unusual for a rack-mount server configuration to have more than one NIC. Of course, it's probably a pretty expensive way to implement a honeywall, unless you happen to have a Sun server that's been replaced with a newer/faster box and is looking for a new reason for continued existence in your server room..
-- Haris Koutsouris GPG Key ID:0x8B08A350
Current thread:
- Honeywall running on SPARC? Lefti (Oct 13)
- Re: Honeywall running on SPARC? Patrick McCarty (Oct 13)
- reassemble data from TAP Vladislav V. Myasnyankin (Oct 14)
- Re: reassemble data from TAP Richard Windmann (Oct 14)
- Re: reassemble data from TAP ADT (Oct 14)
- Re: reassemble data from TAP Kyle Maxwell (Oct 14)
- Re: {Spam?} Honeywall running on SPARC? Haris Koutsouris (Oct 15)
- Re: {Spam?} Honeywall running on SPARC? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 18)
- Re: {Spam?} Honeywall running on SPARC? Haris Koutsouris (Oct 18)
- Re: {Spam?} Honeywall running on SPARC? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 18)