On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:47:24PM -0500 or thereabouts, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Sunday 07 March 2004 08:31 pm, John Andersen wrote:
I've always preferred to have a linux samba running and use bridged networking because any other windows machine on the network (as well as every machine, virtual or not, has access to every other machine.
Yes Bruce, bridged will talk to the host samba, but this requires you make samba availaible on your Outside nic, (eg available to the world).
Oh really??? Wanna bet? Wanna take a crack at the two or three windows machines you'll find on my network? as well as all the linux machines running samba?
Second that... same for me here.. John you do not have to make SAMBA open to a WAN..
Why in hell would you think that just because a service is running on a LAN that it has to be made available to the world?? Eh?
agreed..
Bridged requires (normally) an enternal dhcp server to give you another IP and requires aliasing your real nic (putting it into promiscuous mode).
Bridging does not require DHCP at all John.
I don't run any dhcp, anywhere. It's not needed if you don't want it.
same here.
NAT does not require another external IP (Which may not be available in all cases. E.G. Some DSL providers and Cable modems only support one ip).
I don't run NAT either.
Me either, John, your concept of what NAT is or does is a little off here. What difference if DSN/Cable only support one IP? That does not factor into anything.
You are correct that if other machines also have to talk to your virtual machines bridged does work best. But then you have to run some sort of firewall in the VMs just to keep the SMB worms from attacking your vms.
Just a firewall between your gateway server and the 'outside world', but I assume we all do that... Don't we?
Right, no special firewall to keep SMB worms out on VMW.. it is already behind the LAN firewall. Draw a LAN diagram in your head... WAN-firewall-LAN-(including VMW) in its simplest terms.. -- Gary Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage