Re: Firewall Throughput

["bsgupta" <bsgupta () forindia com>]

Hi All,

I vote for Mr.Darren, first decide What u need Security/Thruput? Any way as everybody know that WAN links are slower 
than LAN, decide first which one u want.

Regs,
Gupta.

On Wednesday, September 06, 2000 at 08:30:18 PM, Darren Reed wrote:

> In some email I received from Benson Hill, sie wrote:
> [Internal error while calling pgp, raw data follows]
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > Hey All
> >
> > We're looking to purchase a new enterprise level firewall.
> > As you can imagine, among other things, throughput is
> > one of the major concerns.
> >
> > Currently we're looking at CheckPoint VPN-1 and Cisco
> > PIX.
> >
> > Of course, both companies claim their solution is the best.
> > Cisco says they are faster, CheckPoint says that's true only
> > for certain types of traffic.
> [...]
>
> What do you value more - throughput or security ?
>
> If you value security, the PIX isn't the answer, IMHO.  Then again,
> the level of protection desired may mean that FW-1 is inappropriate.
>
> If you value throughput then why bother with a PIX ?
> Just get a router and add appropriate ACL's.
>
> The first thing that comes to my mind when I see people asking this
> question is "How fast do you want people to break in?".
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>
> _______________________________________________
> Firewall-wizards mailing list
> Firewall-wizards () nfr net
> http://www.nfr.net/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

bsgupta
e-mail: bsgupta () forindia com




--------------------------------------------------------

Feed  Your Greed !!!
Get your 10MB Free space only at http://www.forindia.com NOW!

--------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Firewall-wizards mailing list
Firewall-wizards () nfr net
http://www.nfr.net/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards