--On Wednesday, September 28, 2005 17:48:59 +0100 "Paul S. Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 16:56, Michael Holstein wrote:
> If you NAT a lot, PIX can't handle the load. It also isn't flexible
> enough.
Huh? .. the FWSM (which is PIX and you can have 4 of them in a chassis)
can handle 100 intefaces, 5gpbs, 100k CPS, and 1M concurrent per blade.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2706/ps4452/
Show me an OpenBSD system that can handle 400 interfaces, 20gbps, and 4M
connections (and can do HSRP, etc).
(I'm not trying to start an open-source "holy war" on a newsgrop .. I
use pf too, where I need the granularity -- just not on the whole
network).
I suspect the argument here has to be cost-for-cost - in the price range
for a decent beefy OpenBSD box you aren't going to be using FWSMs, and I
can quite believe that the PIXen in that price range don't perform - the
PIX 501 is specced at 60MB/s throughput and the cheapest retail price I
can find for it is $678 for the unlimited license version - for the same
money you can get a beefy PC which will push quite a bit more than 60MB/s
$678? Ours were in the mid five figure range. You must be talking about
SOHO units.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
