In a message written on Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:13:54AM +0100, Matthew Walster wrote:
On 30 July 2010 08:32, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
On 2010-07-30 09:27, Matthew Walster wrote:
On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote: With all due respect, I can't see it. Why would a home user need multiple subnets?
* Wireless * Wired * DMZ
Those three I see a lot at various people's places.
I have *never* seen those three security zones separated outside of a business or the house of a nerd who runs his own Linux distro (Smoothwall etc). Furthermore, you're then pushing all that traffic into a $30 router which almost guaranteed will be underpowered.
I know of at least one nationwide DSL provider that ships (with higher end products) a WiFi router with a single checkbox for "guest network", which provides a captive portal style guest WiFi network for folks who visit your house. The same box has had for years a "DMZ" function for your gaming console/machine. The guest network is a separate subnet. The DMZ today is not, it's the wierd IPv4 pass-through thing many NAT boxes do to make weird games work. Still, it's all in a box thats given away for free by an ISP to a new signup; and with IPv6 having more addresses I see no reason each might not be its own subnet in 5-10 more years when IPv6 has taken hold. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/