Re: Opinions regarding Packeteer Packetshaper & alternatives

[Paul Younker <Paul.Younker () GREENVILLE EDU>]

When you say manually update, do you mean researching and identifying
new types of traffic and manually creating rules? If so, I don't have
the staffing level to spend the time it would take to use the unit
manually. That was our initial plan after the discontinuation of
service, but it was proving to be a severe productivity drain on my
staff trying to keep up with new types of traffic.

Allot referred us to a VAR for the NetEnforcer. I can give you their
name off-list if you would like.

Paul Younker
Associate Director of Information Technology
Greenville College
Greenville, IL
 
618.664.7072
618.664.7172 fax
paul.younker () greenville edu
 
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up
where I intended to be. - Douglas Adams
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cal Frye [mailto:cjf () CALFRYE COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:59 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Opinions regarding Packeteer Packetshaper &
alternatives

You can manually update the 4500. We have an 8500 and a 4500, and both
are operating at version 7.01.g1. It's still doing what we need it to
do.

Where did you get your pricing for the Netenforcer? Our indications were
it was rather more than our Packetshapers.

--Cal Frye, Network Administrator, Oberlin College
   www.ouuf.org, www.calfrye.com
   Say Yes Twice for Oberlin Schools!   www.oberlinyesyes.com

  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire (1694-1778)


Paul Younker wrote:
> We had a Packetshaper 4500 series running on our network for a little 
> more than 12 months. We didn't use it any longer than that because 
> Packeteer designated the product as end-of-life and discontinued the 
> software updates for the product. Without the software (and protocol
> identification) updates, the product's usefulness is severely limited.
> Our only option with Packeteer was to spend an additional significant 
> amount of money to upgrade to a 6500 unit a little over a year after 
> buying the 4500 unit.
>
> We are now in the process of evaluating a demo (new) NetEnforcer. 
> Based upon the information we have received, it appears unlikely that 
> Allot will arbitrarily discontinue updates for the products they sell.

> Our very initial impressions of the NetEnforcer are that it is 
> superior to the Packetshaper for a substantially smaller investment. I

> will be extremely reluctant to purchase any products from Packeteer in

> the future.
>
> Paul Younker
> Associate Director of Information Technology Greenville College 
> Greenville, IL
>  
> 618.664.7072
> 618.664.7172 fax
> paul.younker () greenville edu
>  
> I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended 
> up where I intended to be. - Douglas Adams
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaddis, Jeremy L. [mailto:jlgaddis () IVYTECH EDU]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:44 PM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: [SECURITY] Opinions regarding Packeteer Packetshaper & 
> alternatives
>
> Hi,
>
> I am interested in hearing opinions on Packeteer, Inc.'s PacketShaper 
> product as well as any opinions of competing devices.  I am looking to

> perhaps deploy the Packeteer to shape outbound traffic and send some 
> of it to the bitbucket ("net radio", P2P, etc.).
>
> Thanks,
> -j
>
> --
> Jeremy L. Gaddis     <jlgaddis () ivytech edu>
> Special Projects Manager
> Computer & Technology Services
> Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
> 812.330.6156 (w)  812.797.6176 (m)
>