From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tommy McNeely Subject: OT: curious about eth0/eth1 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:59:53 -0700 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <6620000.1041983993@leverage> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org I am curious about why people choose to make a certain interface internal or external... I have always made my "eth0" interface my inside interface.. and once I have the box UP and RUNNING (and firewalled), then bring up my outside interface "eth1" ... My primary network for smb/nfs/whatever is my inside network (thus eth0)... The outside interface is just a "extra interface" that I can add on (or move/change/delete) or even make it ppp0 if I happen to be changing ISP's :) I notice several people pick eth0 as their outside interface, and sorta "oh yea" the rest of the inside network is on eth1. I know the linux kernel could really care less what they are called, its mostly a "neatness" thing I guess... Also it seems like that leaves your box open to attack from the time it installs (if you do a NET based install) till the time you get around to actually putting a firewall on it. Again.. I am just curious as to why some do it one way.. and some the other... the above is only MY opinion, and could be dreadfully wrong :) Tommy -- Tommy McNeely -- Tommy.McNeely@Sun.COM Sun Microsystems - IT Ops - Broomfield Campus Support Phone: x50888 / 303-464-4888 -- Fax: 720-566-3168