On Wed, 5 May 2004, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 06:36 5/5/2004, you wrote: > >From: "Crucificator" <crucificator@xxxxxxx> > > > why not use virtual adapters with ip's from different networks and use > > > only one card? > > > >Because then you'd be sharing 100Mb between the four networks. Rodolfo said > >he wanted to give each client 100Mb connection to the router/server. Still, > >it's not a *bad* idea, perhaps using two dual-ip cards... > > I'm not hung up on everyone getting a 100 Mbps pipe to the server, since > that particular capability would be used less frequently. Getting even 10 > Mbps to each tenant would be just fine as far as bandwidth goes, so we're > OK there. > > The reasons I had for thinking of separate cards were mostly related to the > thought that security would be better by keeping each tenant totally > separate, the odds of one tenant managing to get onto the other's network > would be much lower by not connecting them to the same switch, and that I > could assign different subnets to different tenants via DHCP and then > clearly see where a problem is just by looking at the IP address. I had > also assumed that limiting bandwidth per interface would be easier than > doing it per IP address, but that's just a WAG. > > I don't see a way to do this with virtual IP addresses, especially the > assigning different subnets via DHCP bit. I *am* open to suggestions, > though... that's why I posted here. :-) I do favour the multiple nic route for just the same reasons you give above. To help consolidate the nic's so you don't have to come up with 5 pci slots, check out http://www.mikrotik.com/ and look for "Routerboard 24 Four Port Card". This card has linux drivers. In fact you might be interested in their RouterOS, but I don't believe has provisions for being an ftp server. The base RouterOS download is free. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
