Can anyone suggest a Cisco router alterative?

For the most part, it's a common situation. A DSL line will come into a router, and a FE port will go to the LAN. But the situation tends to require Cisco technology because we need an additional FE port to be given a public address. Furthermore, the FE port of the LAN will receive internal telnet requests that it must forward to the other FE port.
Does anyone know of any cost effective technology out there that would fit this scenario?
Thanks.
effincomputersAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
Steve McCarthy, MCSE, MCSA, MCP x8, Network+, i-Net+, A+, CIWA, CCNA, FDLE FCIC, HIPAA Security OfficerConnect With a Mentor IT Consultant, Network Engineer, Windows Network Administrator, VMware AdministratorCommented:
You can do this with the Watchguard Firebox X series.  I just purchased an X1000 with 3 live interfaces and purchased another 3 interfaces.  I can configure them any way I wish.  At my old Job, I had a Symantec SGS 5440 with 6 interfaces that I could configure the ports any way I wanted.

Steve
0
 
Pete LongTechnical ConsultantCommented:
alternative method or cheaper method?

if its the latter you can get an old 486 PC bang some network cards in it and use Linux to do the work, or install smoothwall Linux firewall and let it do the work?
0
 
effincomputersAuthor Commented:
I could definitely see the cost savings there. But I have to stick to a "router" purchased from a fairly reputable company.
Thanks for the suggestion.
0
Never miss a deadline with monday.com

The revolutionary project management tool is here!   Plan visually with a single glance and make sure your projects get done.

 
Pete LongTechnical ConsultantCommented:
OK depends on the size of the network, I got a pile of cisco gear at home but my live router is a Linksys, you can pick up for about 80.00 sterling :) it forwards all my web traffic to www.petenetlive.com and a host of other stuff

This is what I use (with 54g wireless)
http://www.linksys.com/Products/product.asp?grid=33&scid=35&prid=601
Cheaper option (slower wireless)
 http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&scid=35&prid=544
Cheapest Option (No Wireless)
http://www.linksys.com/Products/product.asp?grid=34&scid=29&prid=561
0
 
effincomputersAuthor Commented:
I would like to work with a Linksys. But the second FE that must be assigned a public address, from my experience, gets in the way. I can't see how an address can be assigned to any of the switch ports. In addition, the only port forwarding I've seen on a Linksys have been for "outside -> in" communication, not "inside -> out" communications. Let me know if I've got it wrong. Thanks.
0
 
Pete LongTechnical ConsultantCommented:
>>But the second FE that must be assigned a public address, from my experience

I understand, though it does have a DMZ option?
0
 
effincomputersAuthor Commented:
Yeah, the third party I have to work with does not want to use the DMZ option. I allows a certain amount of functionality, but it doesn't support their design (addressing scheme).
0
 
Pete LongTechnical ConsultantCommented:
I understand - but low end cisco 1700 series routers are not too expensive, and (thank god for a backtrack in policy) are now rack mountable?
0
 
Steve McCarthy, MCSE, MCSA, MCP x8, Network+, i-Net+, A+, CIWA, CCNA, FDLE FCIC, HIPAA Security OfficerIT Consultant, Network Engineer, Windows Network Administrator, VMware AdministratorCommented:
How about a Watchguard Firebox X firewall.  They are a bit cheaper than Cisco.  You could use a x500 or x700 device and get a full fledged firewall to boot!  
0
 
PennGwynCommented:
> But the situation tends to require Cisco technology because we need an additional FE port to be given a public address.

I think you're melding requirements with implementation too soon.

Requirements given:  We need a device on the network to have a public address, and we don't want to use "DMZ" feature or static NAT for this.

Implementation (Requirement assumed but not actually given):  The public IP address has to be reached via a separate interface of the Internet gateway router.

I don't see anything in what you've said *so far* that precludes adding a second 2-port Ethernet-to-Ethernet router to the network to put the public server address behind.  LinkSys, D-Link, NetGear, Hawking all make small boxes that can do this job.

 
0
 
effincomputersAuthor Commented:
I'm sorry. If I understand you correctly, I should of been clearer in stating that I need 3 interfaces in total. 1 for the ADSL connection, 1 for another public interface, 1 for LAN connection.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.