Dumb Arse Question ADSL Router

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Shane, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Collector»NZ wrote:

    > I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to the
    > network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real world wan
    > address appear at the ethernet port.
    >
    > Any Ideas



    Forwarding rules (ie. forward the lot)?
    This still means your machine has RFC1918 address

    Any other solution is turning your Modem into a Bridge?


    --
    Rule 6: There is no rule 6

    Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Jun 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to the
    network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real world wan
    address appear at the ethernet port.

    Any Ideas
    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
     
    Collector»NZ, Jun 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Shane

    Gordon Guest

    On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:

    > I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to the
    > network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real world wan
    > address appear at the ethernet port.
    >
    > Any Ideas


    Why?
     
    Gordon, Jun 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Shane

    Rhino Guest

    On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ
    <> wrote:

    >I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to the
    >network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real world wan
    >address appear at the ethernet port.
    >
    >Any Ideas


    I know that you can disable NAT on most routers, but that would
    suggest to me that you are going to use public ip addresses on your
    LAN. Can you give us some more details?

    Cheers, Rhino
     
    Rhino, Jun 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Gordon wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >
    >> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to the
    >> network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real world wan
    >> address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>
    >> Any Ideas

    >
    > Why?
    >
    >

    Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity why else ?

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
     
    Collector»NZ, Jun 24, 2006
    #5
  6. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Collector»NZ wrote:

    > Gordon wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to
    >>> the network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real
    >>> world wan address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>>
    >>> Any Ideas

    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >>

    > Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity
    > why else ?
    >


    Thats how I have mine setup. my router dumps everything straight to the
    firewall box.
    On my router (DLink) its called a redirect rule, no idea what its called for
    dynalink, but this might be some help

    http://www.dynalink.co.nz/modemsadsl.htm

    --
    Rule 6: There is no rule 6

    Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Jun 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Shane

    Enkidu Guest

    Collector»NZ wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything
    >>> from/to the network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have
    >>> the real world wan address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>>
    >>> Any Ideas

    >>
    >>
    >> Why?
    >>

    > Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity
    > why else ?
    >

    Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    you through NAT?

    I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux box
    running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means I can
    plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to
    the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and
    NOT have to connect them to the LAN.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Jun 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Shane

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:14:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything
    >>>> from/to the network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have
    >>>> the real world wan address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any Ideas
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Why?
    >>>

    >> Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity
    >> why else ?
    >>

    > Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    > you through NAT?
    >
    > I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    > network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux box
    > running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means I can
    > plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to
    > the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and
    > NOT have to connect them to the LAN.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff

    ....and if you're bridging it to a firewall, then you only have to open up
    ports once, not on the firewall and the router as well. That's how I use
    IPCop.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Jun 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Shane

    Enkidu Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:14:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>>Gordon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything
    >>>>>from/to the network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have
    >>>>>the real world wan address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Any Ideas
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Why?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity
    >>>why else ?
    >>>

    >>
    >>Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    >>you through NAT?
    >>
    >>I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    >>network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux box
    >>running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means I can
    >>plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to
    >>the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and
    >>NOT have to connect them to the LAN.

    >
    > ...and if you're bridging it to a firewall, then you only have to open up
    > ports once, not on the firewall and the router as well. That's how I use
    > IPCop.
    >

    So, with that configuration how do you connect a visitor's machine so
    that it is not on your LAN? There's no drama in opening up ports on the
    router and on the firewall. Bridging the router is like removing your
    front gates because you've got a strong front door!

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Jun 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    > Steve wrote:
    >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:14:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Gordon wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything
    >>>>>>from/to the network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have
    >>>>>>the real world wan address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Any Ideas
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Why?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity
    >>>>why else ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    >>>you through NAT?
    >>>
    >>>I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    >>>network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux box
    >>>running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means I can
    >>>plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to
    >>>the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and
    >>>NOT have to connect them to the LAN.

    >>
    >> ...and if you're bridging it to a firewall, then you only have to open up
    >> ports once, not on the firewall and the router as well. That's how I use
    >> IPCop.
    >>

    > So, with that configuration how do you connect a visitor's machine so
    > that it is not on your LAN? There's no drama in opening up ports on the
    > router and on the firewall. Bridging the router is like removing your
    > front gates because you've got a strong front door!
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    In my situation, I have Intarweb -> router -> Firewall -> hub ->lan
    and Firewall -> DMZ
    (multiple nics in the firewall)
    So a visitor gets plugged into the hub, on the lan

    I trust my firewall over an above my router, and its trivial to open and
    close ports.
    The router is still a weakpoint, as all traffic must pass through it. In an
    ideal situation I would have a router that I could trust doing the work of
    my firewall


    --
    Rule 6: There is no rule 6

    Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Jun 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Shane

    Enkidu Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Steve wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:14:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Gordon wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass
    >>>>>>> everything from/to the network to ethernet in other words
    >>>>>>> turn of NAt and have the real world wan address appear at
    >>>>>>> the ethernet port.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Any Ideas
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Because the machine its hooked to will handle all
    >>>>> nat/firewall activity why else ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router
    >>>> gives you through NAT?
    >>>>
    >>>> I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a
    >>>> private network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my
    >>>> LAN (a linux box running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on
    >>>> 10.10.20.0. It means I can plug visitors' machines into the
    >>>> 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to the Internet if
    >>>> necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and NOT
    >>>> have to connect them to the LAN.
    >>>
    >>> ...and if you're bridging it to a firewall, then you only have to
    >>> open up ports once, not on the firewall and the router as well.
    >>> That's how I use IPCop.
    >>>

    >>
    >> So, with that configuration how do you connect a visitor's machine
    >> so that it is not on your LAN? There's no drama in opening up ports
    >> on the router and on the firewall. Bridging the router is like
    >> removing your front gates because you've got a strong front door!

    >
    > In my situation, I have Intarweb -> router -> Firewall -> hub ->lan
    > and Firewall -> DMZ (multiple nics in the firewall) So a visitor gets
    > plugged into the hub, on the lan
    >
    > I trust my firewall over an above my router, and its trivial to open
    > and close ports. The router is still a weakpoint, as all traffic must
    > pass through it. In an ideal situation I would have a router that I
    > could trust doing the work of my firewall
    >

    The most common configuration out there is have a router pass all
    traffic (but not bridge it) and then have a firewall to filter the
    traffic from the router. I prefer to filter at the router AND at the
    firewall. Two levels of security.

    You should trust your router AND your firewall for maximum security.
    That's what most people do, and I can't see why you want to drop one
    level of security.

    You let people connect directly to your LAN! How trusting you are!
    Either your visitors will be geeks, in which case you can't trust them,
    or they will be non-geeks, in which case you can't trust their machines!

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Jun 25, 2006
    #11
  12. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    > Shane wrote:
    >> Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Steve wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:14:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Gordon wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass
    >>>>>>>> everything from/to the network to ethernet in other words
    >>>>>>>> turn of NAt and have the real world wan address appear at
    >>>>>>>> the ethernet port.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Any Ideas
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Because the machine its hooked to will handle all
    >>>>>> nat/firewall activity why else ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router
    >>>>> gives you through NAT?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a
    >>>>> private network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my
    >>>>> LAN (a linux box running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on
    >>>>> 10.10.20.0. It means I can plug visitors' machines into the
    >>>>> 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to the Internet if
    >>>>> necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and NOT
    >>>>> have to connect them to the LAN.
    >>>>
    >>>> ...and if you're bridging it to a firewall, then you only have to
    >>>> open up ports once, not on the firewall and the router as well.
    >>>> That's how I use IPCop.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> So, with that configuration how do you connect a visitor's machine
    >>> so that it is not on your LAN? There's no drama in opening up ports
    >>> on the router and on the firewall. Bridging the router is like
    >>> removing your front gates because you've got a strong front door!

    >>
    >> In my situation, I have Intarweb -> router -> Firewall -> hub ->lan
    >> and Firewall -> DMZ (multiple nics in the firewall) So a visitor gets
    >> plugged into the hub, on the lan
    >>
    >> I trust my firewall over an above my router, and its trivial to open
    >> and close ports. The router is still a weakpoint, as all traffic must
    >> pass through it. In an ideal situation I would have a router that I
    >> could trust doing the work of my firewall
    >>

    > The most common configuration out there is have a router pass all
    > traffic (but not bridge it) and then have a firewall to filter the
    > traffic from the router. I prefer to filter at the router AND at the
    > firewall. Two levels of security.
    >


    Thats what I do, perhaps I wasnt clear
    My router however doesnt filter any traffic that is destined for my ip.
    All traffic is dumped to my firewall where I have placed all my faith (jebus
    could that sound any worse!),
    Fortunately I have openbsd running the firewall, and that has a security
    record second to none

    I *think* my router is providing some default DoS protection but as with
    most closed source products I have to rely on the documentation (there is
    none) and hope they are telling me no porkys
    (Notice how I worked the holy war in ;-)

    > You should trust your router AND your firewall for maximum security.
    > That's what most people do, and I can't see why you want to drop one
    > level of security.
    >


    Id *like* to trust my router, and to an extent I *have* to (ie. its still a
    router, not a bridge)
    But I dont, I have seen these things compromised before, and I am aware of
    the issues that brings with it.
    ie. once a router is compromised, there is nothing stopping the attacker
    rerouting dns traffic to a dns server that points <banks of choice> at
    <phish site>

    > You let people connect directly to your LAN! How trusting you are!
    > Either your visitors will be geeks, in which case you can't trust them,
    > or they will be non-geeks, in which case you can't trust their machines!
    >


    heh good call
    Is now a good time to mention i r geek, therefore visitors are few and far
    between :)

    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    --
    Rule 6: There is no rule 6

    Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Jun 25, 2006
    #12
  13. Enkidu wrote:
    > Steve wrote:
    >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:14:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Gordon wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything
    >>>>>> from/to the network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and
    >>>>>> have the real world wan address appear at the ethernet port.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Any Ideas
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall
    >>>> activity why else ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    >>> you through NAT?
    >>>
    >>> I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    >>> network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux
    >>> box running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means
    >>> I can plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them
    >>> connect to the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the
    >>> ADSL box and NOT have to connect them to the LAN.

    >>
    >> ...and if you're bridging it to a firewall, then you only have to open up
    >> ports once, not on the firewall and the router as well. That's how I use
    >> IPCop.
    >>

    > So, with that configuration how do you connect a visitor's machine so
    > that it is not on your LAN? There's no drama in opening up ports on the
    > router and on the firewall. Bridging the router is like removing your
    > front gates because you've got a strong front door!
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff

    Thats what the Blue and Orange interfaces are for

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
     
    Collector»NZ, Jun 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Shane

    Rob King Guest

    Collector»NZ wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have a Dynalink ADSL Router and I want it to pass everything from/to the
    > >> network to ethernet in other words turn of NAt and have the real world wan
    > >> address appear at the ethernet port.
    > >>
    > >> Any Ideas

    > >
    > > Why?
    > >
    > >

    > Because the machine its hooked to will handle all nat/firewall activity why else ?


    Put it in Bridge mode and it will just pass all traffic onto the
    ethernet port.

    It's not a crazy idea. I've heard of lots of people doing it when
    using something like Smoothwall or IPCop.
     
    Rob King, Jun 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Shane

    Richard Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    > Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    > you through NAT?
    >
    > I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    > network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux box
    > running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means I can
    > plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them connect to
    > the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the ADSL box and
    > NOT have to connect them to the LAN.



    Most routers seem to have incredibly broken nat implimentations.

    The dlink I tried (was an ethernet router, not an integrated DSL modem and
    router) would only allow 128 active connections. A 3com I tried would close
    connections soley on an oldest first rule, despite them being an active ssh
    session. My nokia dsl router has the (generally adiquite) table of 10000 fill up
    with stale UDP entries whenever I use DHT on azureus.

    All broken. A windows machine runing RRAS works fine, as does a linux machine
    that the flatmate set up.

    The only issue I have with the RRAS box is no upnp support so I have to
    portfoward things manually for voip etc, which is a right pain.

    The only modem I have used which supported getting the IP onto the machine
    properly was the nokia m1122 which used pptp to the router which got translated
    into the PPPoA that telecom so wisely decided upon. Its not like the rest of the
    world where you can bridge it.

    I tried an off brand router (think it was a dse one) that had a 'half bridge'
    mode which actually ment I couldnt communicate with someone in the same subnet
    as my assigned IP because it changed it used dhcp to give the PC the PPP address
    and then took a neighbouring address for itself. Totally broken crap.
     
    Richard, Jun 27, 2006
    #15
  16. Shane

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> Why? Why turns down the extra layer of security that the router gives
    >> you through NAT?
    >>
    >> I run my DSL router with a few pinholes. Behind it I have a private
    >> network (10.10.10.0) and then the gateway through to my LAN (a linux
    >> box running Debian and Shorewall). My LAN is on 10.10.20.0. It means I
    >> can plug visitors' machines into the 10.10.10.0 LAN and have them
    >> connect to the Internet if necessary, protected to some extent by the
    >> ADSL box and NOT have to connect them to the LAN.

    >
    >
    > Most routers seem to have incredibly broken nat implimentations.
    >
    > The dlink I tried (was an ethernet router, not an integrated DSL modem
    > and router) would only allow 128 active connections. A 3com I tried
    > would close connections soley on an oldest first rule, despite them
    > being an active ssh session. My nokia dsl router has the (generally
    > adiquite) table of 10000 fill up with stale UDP entries whenever I use
    > DHT on azureus.


    On a similar note, LinkSys WRT54G does the same, they track old
    connections for five days:

    http://www.utorrent.com/faq.php#Special_note_for_users_with_Linksys_WRT54G_GL_GS_routers
     
    -=rjh=-, Jun 27, 2006
    #16
  17. Shane

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-06-27, -=rjh=- <> wrote:

    >> The dlink I tried (was an ethernet router, not an integrated DSL modem
    >> and router) would only allow 128 active connections. A 3com I tried
    >> would close connections soley on an oldest first rule, despite them
    >> being an active ssh session. My nokia dsl router has the (generally
    >> adiquite) table of 10000 fill up with stale UDP entries whenever I use
    >> DHT on azureus.

    >
    > On a similar note, LinkSys WRT54G does the same, they track old
    > connections for five days:


    another reason not to buy cisco...



    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
     
    jasen, Jun 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Shane

    -=rjh=- Guest

    jasen wrote:
    > On 2006-06-27, -=rjh=- <> wrote:
    >
    >>> The dlink I tried (was an ethernet router, not an integrated DSL modem
    >>> and router) would only allow 128 active connections. A 3com I tried
    >>> would close connections soley on an oldest first rule, despite them
    >>> being an active ssh session. My nokia dsl router has the (generally
    >>> adiquite) table of 10000 fill up with stale UDP entries whenever I use
    >>> DHT on azureus.

    >> On a similar note, LinkSys WRT54G does the same, they track old
    >> connections for five days:

    >
    > another reason not to buy cisco...
    >
    >
    >


    That's a pretty general comment. Cisco make a huge range of stuff.

    In favour of the WRT54G|S|L though, early hardware is pretty decent and
    a range of 3rd party firmware is available with an active user base;
    prices are pretty good; what's not to like?
     
    -=rjh=-, Jun 29, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ralph McClusky

    Win2000 logon pain in the arse.

    Ralph McClusky, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    813
    jeroen
    Sep 7, 2003
  2. David Napierkowski

    Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion

    David Napierkowski, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    369
  3. Synapse Syndrome

    Benchmark my arse

    Synapse Syndrome, Aug 27, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    381
    sbb78247
    Aug 28, 2006
  4. Au79

    Dumb, Dumb Vista

    Au79, Feb 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    545
    WhzzKdd
    Feb 11, 2007
  5. Canon Paora Tikitiki

    oh golly gee - can you feel Labour's finger up your arse?

    Canon Paora Tikitiki, Sep 11, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    522
    Craig Shore
    Sep 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page