Whoops, I see an answer to a previous question I had asked.... What
platform was used for Checkpoint??!? Windows NT, that explains the slow
throughput quoted "34 Mbit" I know for a fact the Unix version of
Checkpoint on a Sun Ultra is at LEAST twice that fast AND the Nokia is
faster yet..... With the limited firewall "LIKE" features it has; I can
well hope it would be faster than Checkpoint.
--=Rick=--
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Brian Steele wrote:
> See the following link, particularly the "stress test" section:
>
> http://www.data.com/lab_tests/ntfirewalls.html
>
> MSP 2.0 hit 62.7 Mbits/sec with NAT enabled, and Heatseeker Pro hit 96.34
> Mbits/sec without NAT. This is probably far and above many people's needs.
> It's certainly above mine, considering our company's external link is 512KB
> :-). At what speed would your external link have to be in order for a
> firewall capable of 62.7 Mbits/s to become a bottleneck?
>
> Interestingly enough, the Raptor and Checkpoint solutions' performance was
> among the lowest, but I'm sure most offices can live with 34 Mbits/s and
> higher throughput quite easily. I tend to agree with Data Communications'
> stance that Firewall performance is secondary to security or management.
>
> Regards,
> Brian Steele
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
