[ale] So, who do we like for a new 4 port gigabit LAN/WAN Firewall Routers these days?

[Raj Wurttemberg]

I'm in the pfSense camp as well. I have them installed in two customer sites as they are rock solid.  I usually only reboot them to update the software... which is not that often, like maybe once a year.

/Raj

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ale <ale-bounces at ale.org> On Behalf Of Neal Rhodes via Ale
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:25 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale at ale.org>
> Subject: [ale] So, who do we like for a new 4 port gigabit LAN/WAN Firewall
> Routers these days?
> 
> So, tonight's experiment at removing port triggering and doing port
> forwarding resulted in the exact same failure from the now unsupported
> Cisco router.   Running a traceroute to "progress.com" from the admin
> page results in:
> 
> progress.com: Temporary failure in name resolution
> Cannot handle "host" cmdline arg `progress.com' on position 1 (argc 3)
> 
> which is interesting, as that error pops up in a lot of unix/linux
> versions.  Is the RV180vpn linux inside?
> 
> I've pretty well had it with Cisco, and this router.
> 
> WHO do we like for a well supported reliable gigabit firewall router
> with 1 WAN, 4-6 LAN ports, no WIFI needed?
>