nanog mailing list archives
Re: Custom Wireless Solution
From: Charles Sprickman <spork () inch com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:17:40 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, John Kristoff wrote:
Mike Schoenecker wrote:if one is prone to be paranoia, using both [1] and [2] probably makes sense.Except that it is currently impractical for many sites since it requires an entirely Cisco end-to-end shop including the Cisco (or Microsoft's) RADIUS server.
Since all these products are bridges, wouldn't it make sense to just have an Open/FreeBSD box at either end with two nics? Both os's can do IPSEC tunnels, and both end nodes will only be bridging a single MAC address. You end up with a "clean" network design (since you've got an actual endpoint or 'router') and you can encrypt your traffic with a bit more confidence than with the WEP stuff... Charles
John
Current thread:
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution, (continued)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Dominic J. Eidson (Apr 22)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Mohan Sundar (Apr 23)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Simon Lockhart (Apr 23)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution poptix (Apr 29)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Lincoln Dale (Apr 23)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Mohan Sundar (Apr 23)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Eric Whitehill (Apr 23)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Dominic J. Eidson (Apr 22)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Miles Fidelman (Apr 23)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Charles Scott (Apr 23)
- RE: Custom Wireless Solution Mike Schoenecker (Apr 25)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution John Kristoff (Apr 25)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Charles Sprickman (Apr 25)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution John Kristoff (Apr 25)
- RE: Custom Wireless Solution Roeland Meyer (Apr 25)
- Re: Custom Wireless Solution Steve Sobol (Apr 30)