CLEANACCESS Archives

June 2006

CLEANACCESS@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Cal Frye <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:29:16 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
  Jonathan Wayman ventured to comment, at 6/14/06 2:06 PM:
> What seems to be the most common deployment for in-band? Virtual gateway (L2
> bridinging only), Real-IP gateway (CAS is the gateway for the untrusted
> subnet(s)), or NAT?  I realize that this depends quite a bit on network
> topology and what you want to accomplish.  I would just like to get a feel
> for how most people have this deployed.
> 
Ours are Real-IP gateways. At first we couldn't get the DHCP information 
through the virtuals, then it just made sense to migrate that function 
to CCA altogether. We started out somewhere in version 2, so historical 
reasoning may not apply to your situation. Lacking Cisco switches, the 
OOB solution is not available to us, either.

-- 
-- Cal Frye, Network Administrator, Oberlin College
     www.ouuf.org,  www.calfrye.com,  www.pitalabs.com

"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the 
chance?" --Ronald Reagan (b. 1911)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2