I had to install 5.5 from scratch and now I have to rebuild my home networking system.
I haven't had to mess with this stuff in over 5+ years and I'm sure there may be better ways of doing it now.
My liunx box acts as firewall/gateway for 2 other pcs. I was using a script from the Linux IP Masquerade HOWTO with ddclient (since I have a dynamic ip).
Also, I don't think I need a full name server. Can I get by with a caching nameserver?
Thanks!!
Eddie
El mié, 19-05-2010 a las 09:42 -0400, tdukes@sc.rr.com escribió:
I had to install 5.5 from scratch and now I have to rebuild my home networking system.
I haven't had to mess with this stuff in over 5+ years and I'm sure there may be better ways of doing it now.
My liunx box acts as firewall/gateway for 2 other pcs. I was using a script from the Linux IP Masquerade HOWTO with ddclient (since I have a dynamic ip).
Also, I don't think I need a full name server. Can I get by with a caching nameserver?
Yes, you don't need more than that for your home network.
Thanks!!
Eddie
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I had to install 5.5 from scratch and now I have to rebuild my home networking system.
Oy!
I haven't had to mess with this stuff in over 5+ years and I'm sure there may be better ways of doing it now.
Unless you're dealing with many systems all the time, that's the way it always is. I got openLDAP (gag!) working in '06, and upgraded in '08, but I'd have to do heavy research to redo that today.
My liunx box acts as firewall/gateway for 2 other pcs. I was using a script from the Linux IP Masquerade HOWTO with ddclient (since I have a dynamic ip).
Have you run Bastille on the firewall/gateway?
Also, I don't think I need a full name server. Can I get by with a caching nameserver?
I never set one up, and have been meaning to for a while. I'm interested in the answer.
mark
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:42 AM, tdukes@sc.rr.com wrote:
I had to install 5.5 from scratch and now I have to rebuild my home networking system.
I haven't had to mess with this stuff in over 5+ years and I'm sure there may be better ways of doing it now.
My liunx box acts as firewall/gateway for 2 other pcs. I was using a script from the Linux IP Masquerade HOWTO with ddclient (since I have a dynamic ip).
Though there are many benefits to running gateway services through a Linux system, for the past couple years I've opted for an inexpensive wireless router that has been properly secured. It came down to power utilization as the Linux machine used about 10 times as much power as the dedicated router.
As to benefits, I do run a Squid proxy server on my network. My internet connection is not the fastest and I've seen pretty good cache hit percentage (hovering near 30%-50%).
Also, I don't think I need a full name server. Can I get by with a caching nameserver?
Yes, certainly. However, there are some benefits to running a full nameserver especially if you have any wireless devices that may need to use printers, file servers, etc.. For example, I can connect a wireless laptop and print to HPLaser1 or access the fileshare as \fileserver. When I change the fileserver it's a simple matter of pointing my alias over to the new server.
On 5/19/2010 8:42 AM, tdukes@sc.rr.com wrote:
I had to install 5.5 from scratch and now I have to rebuild my home networking system.
I haven't had to mess with this stuff in over 5+ years and I'm sure there may be better ways of doing it now.
My liunx box acts as firewall/gateway for 2 other pcs. I was using a script from the Linux IP Masquerade HOWTO with ddclient (since I have a dynamic ip).
Also, I don't think I need a full name server. Can I get by with a caching nameserver?
If you are starting from scratch and don't know your way around the linux system, why not use one of the 'appliance' style distributions like ClearOS (fairly new) or SMEserver (older but still works)? These are based on CentOS code but have a simple web interface for configuration and will probably set up the firewalling/NAT better than you would do by yourself.
But to answer your question - the only difference between the caching nameserver package and a normal nameserver is that the caching version will overwrite your local configs on updates (since you shouldn't have made any changes). If you want to have a local zone for your own machines - even if it isn't official or public, you don't want the caching version.
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:31 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are starting from scratch and don't know your way around the linux system, why not use one of the 'appliance' style distributions like ClearOS (fairly new) or SMEserver (older but still works)? These are based on CentOS code but have a simple web interface for configuration and will probably set up the firewalling/NAT better than you would do by yourself.
ClearOS looks awesome. Have you tried it?
Regards,
Ranbir
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:17 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Networking setup/help
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:31 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are starting from scratch and don't know your way around the linux system, why not use one of the 'appliance' style
distributions
like ClearOS (fairly new) or SMEserver (older but still
works)? These
are based on CentOS code but have a simple web interface for configuration and will probably set up the firewalling/NAT
better than
you would do by yourself.
ClearOS looks awesome. Have you tried it?
Regards,
Ranbir
No, I haven't even heard of it. :-(
I've been with CentOS for a long time. Ran RedHat for a longtime, since around 2.0, the went to Fedora, got tired of stuff not working, so I switched to CentOS.
I'm not an IT guy. I have a website that I use it for testing, etc. This is only about the 3rd 'clean' install I've done since about 1997. I had 5.5 installed as an upgrade until I mucked up an app and tried to restore it from backup and hosed everything. Now I'm trying to play catch up.
I now have my local network able to connect to the internet. Don't have DNS setup yet or sendmail. I'm a little afraid to try to restore those files from my backup as that's what got me in trouble.
I will say, everything is running a lot faster so maybe this wasn't so bad after all.
Thanks,
Eddie
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:31 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are starting from scratch and don't know your way around the linux system, why not use one of the 'appliance' style distributions like ClearOS (fairly new) or SMEserver (older but still works)? These are based on CentOS code but have a simple web interface for configuration and will probably set up the firewalling/NAT better than you would do by yourself.
ClearOS looks awesome. Have you tried it?
I don't have a real use for it right now but I have one running under vmware to test and migrated some big imap mailboxes over from an old smeserver. It seems to be very well done with a very responsive web interface for management.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:29 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Networking setup/help
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:31 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are starting from scratch and don't know your way
around the
linux system, why not use one of the 'appliance' style
distributions
like ClearOS (fairly new) or SMEserver (older but still works)? These are based on CentOS code but have a simple web interface for configuration and will probably set up the firewalling/NAT better than you would do by yourself.
ClearOS looks awesome. Have you tried it?
I don't have a real use for it right now but I have one running under vmware to test and migrated some big imap mailboxes over from an old smeserver. It seems to be very well done with a very responsive web interface for management.
I like CentOS. While it might not be for the average Joe (me), the folks here are really helpful and knowlegeable.
Did a really short stint with 'White Box' until that kinda fizzled.
I have no reason to leave CentOS.
Eddie
Thomas Dukes wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:29 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Networking setup/help
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:31 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are starting from scratch and don't know your way
around the
linux system, why not use one of the 'appliance' style
distributions
like ClearOS (fairly new) or SMEserver (older but still works)? These are based on CentOS code but have a simple web interface for configuration and will probably set up the firewalling/NAT better than you would do by yourself.
ClearOS looks awesome. Have you tried it?
I don't have a real use for it right now but I have one running under vmware to test and migrated some big imap mailboxes over from an old smeserver. It seems to be very well done with a very responsive web interface for management.
I like CentOS. While it might not be for the average Joe (me), the folks here are really helpful and knowlegeable.
Did a really short stint with 'White Box' until that kinda fizzled.
I have no reason to leave CentOS.
ClearOS really is CentOS as far as most of the code goes. It just comes with a simple web interface to mange setup of services that would otherwise be moderately hard to get right on your own (firewalling, cyrus email server, ldap user directory, dns, vpn, etc.). You could easily turn it over to someone you wouldn't trust with the root password to a bare normal linux box.
-
Enrique Verdes -
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu -
Kwan Lowe -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
tdukes＠sc.rr.com -
Thomas Dukes