Simple question on software based router

R

rotteneggz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
164
Hello people,
I have been looking into useing a software based router like Smoothwall or Freesco for my company.

From all the options, i'm leaning towards freesco unless someone here tells me i shouldn't with a god reason why. Basically i need the router for QoS for voip lines.

The questions i have a pretty simple. Is there a special way to install two NIC cards? or is it just as simple as plugging in a second one and installing the drivers.

Thanks
 
I would highly recommend IPCop or Smoothwall over Freesco.

Development is much stronger for both IPCop and Smoothwall. Addons add further scalability to both distributions. Also take a look at Untangle if you are looking for something a bit "beefier".

Installation is pretty straight forward. Each NIC will be designated a certain function such as WAN, LAN, DMZ, or WiFi.

So for example:

NIC #1 plugs into your Incoming Cable Modem/DSL line.

NIC #2 plugs into a switch to serve DHCP to clients and connect them to the network.

NIC #3 could go out to a Wireless Access Point or DMZ for a server.
 
I've been deploying many Kerio Winroute boxes in the past couple years, they are by far my favorite. Easy to use Adminstration, easy to integrate users from Active Directory and setting them up on VPN. Alerts, dyndns, remote admin console, QoS are all great features of the software. However it is a bit pricey. www.kerio.com
 
AMD_Gamer said:
i am a fan of IPCOP myself but this guy is looking for QoS and as far as IPCOP goes QoS is very hard to figure out how to implement.
Click to expand...

So should i go with smoothwall instead?
And thanks for the clarification on the NIC's LoStMaTt.
 
For his situation, my vote would be MonoWall/pfSense. The newer versions of pfSense have a beautiful QoS setup wizard that's has smoothed out my VOIP line even against multiple torrents running simultaneously. Now, granted, this is all running at home, in a non critical environment.

Personally, I'm a big proponent for most flavors of the *nix-based firewalls, but... For a business, I'd probably spend the $ for a manufacturer supported hardware device. However, if you are deadset on doing this for yourself, make sure the you UNDERSTAND that if the !@#$@!# hits the fan, you are on your own for a solution.
 
Nate7311 said:
For his situation, my vote would be MonoWall/pfSense. The newer versions of pfSense have a beautiful QoS setup wizard that's has smoothed out my VOIP line even against multiple torrents running simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I have had alot of people tell me pfsense is really buggy, what's your take on it?
 
munkle said:
I have had alot of people tell me pfsense is really buggy, what's your take on it?
Click to expand...

I've got a 1.0.1 pfSense box set up in an environment with multiple public IPs for people running servers or VPNs, and about 80 users. I've had no problems with it in the past two months. QoS that was set up by the wizard was not very helpful though.. Rather it worked great, until an Adobe reader update and windows updates came out on the same day, everyone was downloading them at once, and QoS started dropping a ton of packets. Luckily our VOIP has two separate T1s dedicated to it, completely independant of the two that provide our internet. Ended up turning QoS off, to figure it out properly later, but I havent had time to get to it yet.
 
RavenD said:
until an Adobe reader update and windows updates came out on the same day, .
Click to expand...

Easy to fix for the future..uninstall Adobe AcroBloat Reader...all components, and install Foxit Reader...free.

Windows/Microsoft updates solved with WSUS.
 
munkle said:
I have had alot of people tell me pfsense is really buggy, what's your take on it?
Click to expand...

I've had a pfsense box running for several years now. And I couldn't be happier with it.

As far as it being "buggy" - then m0n0wall would have to be buggy also because pfsense is an off-shoot of m0n0wall.

But both m0n0wall and pfsense are very good and easy to setup. They are more configurable than smoothwall is but smoothwall is more noobie friendly IMO. I haven't tried IPCOP yet and I'm thinking about giving ClarkConnect a try.
 
munkle said:
I have had alot of people tell me pfsense is really buggy, what's your take on it?
Click to expand...

When I tried it over a year ago...had frequent game disconnects with Battlefield..like something was off with the QoS. Didn't fiddle much more with it.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
Easy to fix for the future..uninstall Adobe AcroBloat Reader...all components, and install Foxit Reader...free.

Windows/Microsoft updates solved with WSUS.
Click to expand...
I would do this if it was possible.
I'm in an office building with 47 offices - one of which is mine. I'm responsible for the network, but have no access to people's systems. All I can do is reccomend software but that doesnt mean people are going to use it - seems like most people would rather keep using what they're used to even if its bloated than learn something new.
 
what kind of switch should i use? What is the difference between a managed and an unmanaged switch?
 
Well I have tried a lot of those (Smoothwall 2, Smoothwall 3, Clarkconnect, Endian firewall, Astaro versions 6 and 7, IPCop, Monowall and Zeroshell) in my quest to be able to play COD4 while loading my line with torrents, and I have to give my vote to pfsense (using 1.2 RC4 at the moment). Traffic shaping is by far the best I've tried, at least the ping are satying low and no lag, web access remains very fast. The traffic shaping wizard is not bad to get started but needs a little tweaking depending on the services on your network.

I have setup many configurations at various client locations, and for simplicity I agree that Smoothwall is best for newbies, I have used it for a few clients (10 to 50 users) and it has been stable as a rock, easy to configure and maintain.

I have also used Astaro for a few clients, great product (not free) but overkill for home use and traffic shaping is poorly implemented. On top of that, if you have never setup a router/firewall before you will find it a bit more complex than the other ones to say the least.


Pfsense runs on a toaster almost, is fast and has no extra useless features unless you want to install optional packages.

Hope it helps you
 
munkle said:
I have had alot of people tell me pfsense is really buggy, what's your take on it?
Click to expand...

Well, I use it at home installed on a 1gbCF card plugged into an IDE Adapter on an old HP Pavillion P3-1Ghz w/512mb. Apart from the basic NAT/Firewall functions, I also have 2 IPSEC VPN tunnels running, one to a Cisco 506E at work and the other to an Endian 2.1 Box as a buddy's place. I also use DHCP reservations, QoS, dynamic DNS services. Been running the same config for about 2 years, an 3 different revisions of pfSense. It's had questionable releases like every other product, but overall it's been very stable for me. No lag issues with my VOIP line when running multiple torrents AND downloading from the newsgroups either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top