[Gllug] local DNS with smoothwall or IPcop?

[Steve Nicholson]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:32:17 +0000 Xander D Harkness wrote:
> You could use your /etc/hosts or c:\windows\hosts file for this and it > would have the same effect as long as you are not running a proxy / 
> cache on the smoothwall box

Have had problems with business partners w2k box and hosts file so trying to avoid this (still working on converting him over to Linux).  Also want to do some testing on another flatmates XP box without him knowing the domain is internal (I like messing with his brain:).
 
-snip-bit-on-ipcop-msn---

> I have heard the same of people who bought Commercial hardware
> solutions. 
> As far as I can tell it is very poorly engineered and has to choose
> from a myriad of ports, so rather than being able to run one or two of
> these applicatiosn NATed you have to port forward all the relevant
> ports to one IP.

Yeah thats what I've read on the M$ site and assumed you basically have to open everything up and it's only good for one internal IP, thought I would check on the list first.  Will get him to try something else.

> There are lots of other applications available such a linphone that I 
> think have win32 counterparts.

Thanks for this, had a quick look at linphone, also helped me discover gnokii (linux replacement for phonesync on Nokia phones) which is something I've wondered about for a while.

> 
> I had also heard a lot od stuff about the creators of smoothwall.  I 
> have seen Richard Morrell post on Gllug a couple of times:
> 
> http://list.ftech.net/pipermail/gllug/2000-September/002879.html
> 
> The posts do not reflect what I had heard.  I was excited when I saw

I have seen his rants when I was on the smoothwall list, while I can understand them to a certain degree I don't find them acceptable.  You don't give something away, ask people to give feedback and then jump on them when they do.  It was definitely a good eye opener on how not to run a OSS project as far as I'm concerned.

> IPcop appear as there was so much that I wanted Smoothwall to do and it 
> seems that they were just seeking to do the 'commercial thing', whereas 
> I wanted Squid auth, I wanted multiple red IPs.  You can buy all this; 
> however it was a bit much for home - so I learned a lot more than I 
> expected and built my own setup.

I'm in the same boat, I operate from home and can't afford to pay for a full commercial version where there is only the odd extra I need.  Smoothwall has done ok but I think it's time to move to something a little more open like IPcop.

> It seems that IPcop apart from putting Ext3 in (which is in the new SM > beta) had not done much except change the HTML.
> 
> The travel plans for IPcop seem interesting and if I cannot contribute > to SM, I guess I should move my rump and help out elsewhere ;-)

Good thinking.  Thanks for your reply Xander.

Steve

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug