Nokia IP440 has been tested to 90.03 Mbps Max. No. of Concurrent Connections
over 21,909 ,
Maximum Connections per Second over 995. using encryption cut to about
half.
. The new ip650 has even greater greater speed and capcity..
,
Gary L. Mills
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher J. Witter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: High performance/scalable firewalls
>
> I know one thing you have over looked Raptor by axent...... Only Firewall
> I know of that has been tested to 45 mbps they have a white paper on it, I
> believe the test was done in conjunction with Compaq.
>
> Christopher Witter
> MCSE, MCP +Internet, ICIS, IIAE
>
> Windows NT Crashed.
> I am the Blue Screen of Death.
> No one hears your screams.
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > I've been having trouble finding reliable information about scalable,
> > high-availability firewalls and was hoping some people here may be able
> > to give me some direction.
> >
> > First, some base requirements:
> >
> > - The firewall will be protecting an externally hosted web service we're
>
> > developing. High security and high reliability are essential.
> > - The traffic passing through the firewall will be 95% inbound SSL3
> > encrypted web traffic. The remainder would be outbound DNS queries
> and
> > SMTP traffic, and a small amount of inbound management traffic (VPN or
>
> > SSH).
> > - The system must be able to accommodate T3 levels of traffic (45Mbps).
> > - The system must have redundancy/failover capabilities.
> > - The system should provide good logging & auditing capabilities.
> >
> > Before the bandwidth requirements had come into play, we had narrowed
> down
> > the choices to Gauntlet or Firewall-1 running on 2 Sun 250 servers.
> There
> > is some concern, however, as to whether this would be able to handle the
>
> > bandwidth requirements.
> >
> > The alternatives are looking at other firewall solutions that have
> higher
> > (perceived) performance such as PIX or ANS, or possibly using a load
> > balancing system in front of the firewalls. One vendor has also
> suggested
> > using a Sun cluster solution.
> >
> > I'm a little leary of all of these options since I'm not as
> knowledgeable
> > about the other firewall products and the other options increase the
> > complexity of the system. I was also hoping to be able to standardize
> on
> > one firewall product, since we'll also need a firewall (supporting much
> > more more general purpose traffic) in front of our business network.
> >
> > Has anyone had experience running a similar configuration that can give
> > some pointers as to what the best options are? Or are there better
> > options that we're overlooking?
> >
> > Thanks very much in advance.
> >
> > Scott Miles
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -
> > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
> >
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
