[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <793FA11DFC9FAA0179DA64A9@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
Date: Thu Sep 29 00:16:12 2005
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: Suggestion for IDS
--On Wednesday, September 28, 2005 17:48:59 +0100 "Paul S. Brown"
<pol@...kstuff.tv> 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 (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists