Does Anyone Make a Router WITHOUT a Firewall?!?!

Broadsword · Post by **Broadsword** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 12:03 am

I absolutely can not stand the hardwired firewalls that always seem to be in every router I purchase! It is nothing but annoying protection that I don't need that interferes with me running servers, gaming and file sharing. I hate the web-based interface and the DMZ never works the way I want it to. Now, before I throw a 2nd NIC in my main tower and turn on the ICS I would like to know if any company makes a router that doesn't have any sort of firewall what so ever.

Thank you!

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:56 am

WIth ICS will you still run a sw firewall? If so, you'll probably have the same problems.

Might also consider looking higher-end. I made the plunge and bought a sonicwall a few years back ($400US) and have never ben disappointed. DLink, Linksys, Netgear....they're fine for a home lan. You want business class you gotta pay for it. I have never had problems with h323, ftp, or any other app that requires dynamic forwarding.

Broadsword · Post by **Broadsword** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:04 am

With ICS I would not run a software firewall. I really am not concerned with any kind of attempts on my system at all. All I have are home computers and they are used a REAL lot, but nothing REALLY important on them and nothing anyone would want to steal. I know I could be attacked randomly, but I really don't care. I hate all the crap that you have to go through with software and hardware firewalls and I wish I could just get a router that didn't come with a firewall already installed. Oh well, looks like I'll be buying a switch and a second NIC... There's nothing like a direct connection right into the cable modem.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:00 am

Well that's how NAT works....if you want to share a single broadband internet connection to a bunch of computers, you're going to have NAT.

That "single IP" to a "bunch of private IP's"...that's Network Address Translation. By design, NAT provides a basic hardware firewall.

Unless you get some setup with your ISP where you're handed a bunch of public IP's, like if you get a business grade DSL line, some ISP's give you 5x public IP's or something like that.

What applications are you having problems with?

Broadsword · Post by **Broadsword** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:16 pm

I'm having problems with BitTorrent, which I use a LOT and updating Counter-Strike servers sometimes as well.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:10 pm

Broadsword wrote:I'm having problems with BitTorrent, which I use a LOT and updating Counter-Strike servers sometimes as well.

forward some ports for BT to work better.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:27 am

Counter Strike server...are you running one locally? Just need to run the "server" on a static LAN IP and forward the necessary ports.

Bittorrent I can't help with, I don't use P2P apps at all since years ago, and back then only used WinMX which had no problem being run behind NAT.

J-high · Post by **J-high** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:00 am

If you say you use Bittorrent alot you are still going to run into the problem of choking up your Main internet connection even if you do use ICS or a router... Yes i know that with most Bittorrent clients you are able to regulate your upstream but you still saturate your downstream and will alot of times make a game server have very low internet performance.....

Depending on the type of router you have i would set up your virtual server settings instead of setting up the port forwarding settings(much the same thing) but allows alittle more flexiblity...<--some routers only have this option instead of forwarding and some have both....and as YOSC said in a earlier post you should set up static IP's on your LAN instead of having Dhcp assigning IP's that way you can assign certain properties to specific PC's on your network....

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:51 pm

I use ABC bit torrent behind a router, port forwarding works ok for me. I just use a static ip's on the lan side so I'm not trying to hit a moving target.

cesium · Post by **cesium** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:57 am

well, i use bittorrent on a 4mb connection, and i limit my DL speed to 300kb, giving a 200kb DL head, and my upload is 40k, giving a 20k head. its more than enough. and i can play XBOX live with no lag, and i can also host games on the PC with no lag...

btw, Linksys sells a no-firewall router i think

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:07 pm

cesium wrote:btw, Linksys sells a no-firewall router i think

Nah, I don't think so. A router uses NAT, and NAT (network address translation) acts as a firewall. If it doesn't have NAT it's not a router, it would be a hub.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:58 am

The Dude wrote:If it doesn't have NAT it's not a router, it would be a hub.

Not true, you can say all NAT devices are routers, but you can't say all routers are NAT devices.

Just about all of the home market routers are NAT boxes however.

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:26 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:you can say all NAT devices are routers, but you can't say all routers are NAT devices.

For example, Cisco. They make NAT fun for network engineers and a nightmare for those wanting "out of the box" functionality. In many cases, by default, NAT has to be configured from the ground up within the limits of IOS before you can even use the damn thing properly.

V_LESTAT · Post by **V_LESTAT** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:08 am

i have a belkin router that you can disable NAT on.. and still keep it as a router,, and not a gateway.

turning NAT off makes networking a pain in the arse though i dont know why they have tht option there.

if you dont want nat or a router or a firewall just go buy a switch