Re: Firewall scaling

["Keith A. Glass" <salgak () speakeasy net>]

And if manglement is THAT clueless, you'll need that big a box to handle all the sessions from the trojans, spyware, 
and other crap that manglement and their kid brother download onto the company boxes. . . 

My rule: there's no such thing as too big a firewall. . .

And for smaller companies, if you can dedicate part of it to viruses, malware, and email de-crapping, all the better.  
You don't have the manpower to do the jobs right: let the hardware do it for you . . .  .
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto:mjr () ranum com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 04:19 PM
> To: 'Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List', 
> firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
> Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall scaling
>
> Sami Ghourabi wrote:
> > I'm trying to convince management that a firewall that supports 32000
> > concurrent sessions is enough for an organization that has a single WAN
> > internet link, and about 60-100 users, but I'm lacking arguments.
>
>
> Sami - you obviously work for retards. If they need to have arguments
> from their technical staff regarding matters of technical obviousness,
> they clearly don't understand the problem and aren't likely to ever
> understand it.
>
> My suggestion is that you tell them "Industry Expert Marcus Ranum
> SAYS that for 100 concurrent users you need EXACTLY 3,560
> concurrent session capability."  It's based on a formula that I
> would publish, except that, unfortunately, it was classified by the
> IAEA.
>
> mjr. 
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards