Dub Dublin wrote:
> It seems to me that the semantics of "adding another internal
> network, and basically declaring it insecure" are equivalent
> to saying that that additional interface is "external", since
> today, only the external interface is untrusted.
>
> After all, the only real difference between internal and
> external is the policy that's applied to them. Whatever
> happens, my guess is that you'll probably want a different
> network (or subnet) on htat interface in order to keep things
> straight. This is different than a hub on the external
> interface, precisely because it would create a different IP
> network with which to work.
Ok, we were thinking of the same thing at least. I was thinking "internal" as in downstream from the e-smith, as opposed to "external" and downstream from the cable modem (or whatever) and not a part of the e-smith's LAN. While you'd still be excluding the third NIC from the trusted LAN, I see it as internal simply because it's behind the e-smith. It would have a private IP and everything would be routed through the e-smith, rather than connected directly like the external NIC in the e-smith. Oh well, six of one, half dozen of another.