Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: High Speed Firewalls
From: Chenggong Charles Fan <fan () rainfinity com>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 20:56:54 -0800
I have a question regarding using load-balancers (such as F5, Alteon or LocalDirector) for firewalls to achieve high performance and high availability. If the firewall sits on 3 subnets, it seems that you'll need three pairs of load balancers (one for each subnet) to have a HA+LB solution. If you have more subnets, it's gonna be even more expensive. Is there any go-around for that? Charles "Woeltje, Donald" wrote:
I'm sorry Rick, but it's not. When I priced BigIP, it was running over $50,000 (depending on the licensing, as I remember; it's been a couple years). At that same time, the Alteon ACESweitch 180 (with the ACElerate software) came in at between $17,000 and $18,000. And the ACESwitch performed 20 times faster, approximately. And it had all the same types of load balancing features. It also outperformed Cisco's Load Director (or, and I apologize to the group if I'm remembering the name a little incorrectly, Cisco's Local Director; again, it's been a couple years) by an even greater amount. Now, if I remember correctly, the Cisco solution was running in the low $20k's, almost price competitive with the Layer 4 switches on the market (including Alteon, which was the only Layer 4 switching product I tested). But in my mind there was just no comparison, overall. Why pay more for less when you can pay less for more?-----Original Message----- From: Rick Murphy [SMTP:rmurphy () mitretek org] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:15 AM To: Henry Baez; firewall-wizards () nfr net Subject: Re: High Speed Firewalls At 10:51 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Henry Baez wrote:I am doing research on very high speed firewalls. I mean firewalls that are right now available that could handle OC3 and higher speeds via Gig Byte Etherenet cards. In searching the recent posting of this list and a lot of general web searching, I have found only one firewall that claims they can do so. It is call POTUS from a company called Livermore Software Laboratories. I would very much like to find at lease another vendor which at lease matches the claim of PORTUS, 300 MB plus through put. Management, bless them, likes to have choices, I would like to present more then one vendor if possiable.Since your requirement is for large bulk file transfers, I'd be wary - or at least ask the vendor to let you validate their performance claims. If I'm not mistaken, Portus uses a ftp proxy. To get anything like 300 MB/s through a proxy is going to use a really big hulking machine - especially if you're talking a small number of FTP streams. Even 300 megabit/sec is pretty unlikely unless it's a big box. I agree with the other folks that using a filtering router is probably the lowest cost solution for you. -Rick
Current thread:
- Re: High Speed Firewalls, (continued)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Chenggong Charles Fan (Mar 08)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Bennett Todd (Mar 12)
- personal firewalls Randy Grimshaw (Mar 13)
- Re: personal firewalls Rick Murphy (Mar 21)
- Re: personal firewalls elad (Mar 21)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Mike Barkett (Mar 07)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Bennett Todd (Mar 07)
- Active FTP behind a router doing NAT Arnaud Chiaberge (Mar 12)
- Re: Active FTP behind a router doing NAT Ryan Russell (Mar 17)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Eric Hall (Mar 13)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Crispin Cowan (Mar 12)
- RE: High Speed Firewalls David Newman (Mar 12)
- Re: High Speed Firewalls Crispin Cowan (Mar 12)
- RE: High Speed Firewalls David Newman (Mar 12)
- Re: RE: High Speed Firewalls Crispin Cowan (Mar 17)
- RE: RE: High Speed Firewalls David Newman (Mar 17)
- Re: RE: High Speed Firewalls Crispin Cowan (Mar 21)
- RE: RE: High Speed Firewalls David Newman (Mar 21)
- Re: RE: High Speed Firewalls Crispin Cowan (Mar 21)