[olug] Community Colo Project

[Dan Clough]

The whiteboxes are what I've grown weary of, so it seems I misunderstood what you were explaining.  My bad.

The least expensive and most expandable solution would be the best.  If it can do SNMP, IPv4, IPv6 and failover then it's got all the features we need.  Anything else is just chrome.
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis LaMasters <curtislamasters at gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:06:32 
To: Omaha Linux User Group<olug at olug.org>
Subject: Re: [olug] Community Colo Project


I understand the reliabilty aspect.  No question there.  But one could
argue that the hardware in most "platform" based devices, i.e. Cisco
are not too far from being commodity.  The ASA 5505 has a Celeron
processor, the PIX 501 has an AMD Elon and the Cisco 3640 uses a R4700
RISC.

Unless I am from another planet, they are all purchasable processors
for the public and really nothing special. I am not recommending
putting a whitebox together to make a routing platform, but possibly
take a Dell 1750 with dual processors, ECC memory, RAID 1 on SCSI
10k's and dual power supplies.  I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a
"platform" device with as much redundnacy.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm willing to bet that
there are 10+ on this list that can figure out ANY issue using a FOSS
based router.

Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com



On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Dan Clough <dclough at gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally have no objections if you can put together a system
> that's as stable or more stable than a hardware router.  Call me
> biased if you'd like, it's just that I've spent the last week trying
> to get some phantom glitches out of one of my newer custom-built
> boxes.
>
> I don't have a whole lot of experience with the open source
> alternatives, just the underlying hardware, so I guess I have yet to
> see how stable the actual software really is.
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Curtis LaMasters
> <curtislamasters at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What's complex about it?  I have found pfsense much simpler to
>> configure typical features minus BGP compared to Cisco or Juniper and
>> I originally came from a Cisco background.  We can take this offline,
>> I'm fine with that.
>>
>> Curtis LaMasters
>> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
>> http://www.builtnetworks.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Phil Brutsche <phil at brutsche.us> wrote:
>>> By big problem with most FOSS routers and firewalls is the complexity,
>>> both in the hardware and the software.
>>>
>>> I never liked pfsense and always preferred the original m0n0wall exactly
>>> for that reason.
>>>
>>> Curtis LaMasters wrote:
>>>> I would vote FOSS for the firewall/router setup (pfsense or vyetta)
>>>> would work fine.  I could donate time for sure and hardware possibly
>>>> to accomplish that.  With pfsense we would have the ability to do VPN,
>>>> IDS/IPS, Failover, and even BGP if required, however, I'm with Phil
>>>> that BGP it's overkill. However, I do have one somewhat dumb question?
>>>>  What would you all put on the your community DC hosted servers?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Phil Brutsche
>>> phil at brutsche.us
>>>_______________________________________________
>>> OLUG mailing list
>>> OLUG at olug.org
>>> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>> OLUG mailing list
>> OLUG at olug.org
>> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>>
>_______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>
_______________________________________________
OLUG mailing list
OLUG at olug.org
https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug