[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [FW1] Nokia vs. NT
Hahha, thanks Tim. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Larry Pingree Sr. Security Consultant Email: [email protected] SiegeWorks Company WebSite: http://www.siegeworks.com/ Security Installation, Training and Consulting -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Holman <[email protected]> To: Larry Pingree <[email protected]>; Tim Anderson <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [FW1] Nokia vs. NT > > Sorry - I got my facts wrong - if you compare hardware with similar > processors in, then Linux comes first, then IPSO, then RS/6000, then > Solaris, and then NT. > > http://www.checkpoint.com/products/firewall-1/pbrief.html > > However, if you can't afford a Nokia 660 and can only afford say a 330 or > 440, then for what your money buys you, you could easily afford a fast > dual-processor box and run NT on it, and it will be faster, which is sort of > more what I meant. > Still, Linux is King when it comes to FW-1, and it's free... > > :) > > Tim > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Larry Pingree <[email protected]> > To: Tim Holman <[email protected]>; Tim Anderson > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: 15 February 2001 19:43 > Subject: Re: [FW1] Nokia vs. NT > > > > > > Tim, please refer me to where you have seen these NT comparasons to the > > Nokia, when I worked at Nokia, I've never seen numbers that reflected > slower > > times on a Nokia compared with NT, I cannot imagine an NT box passing > > packets faster than Unix. Thanks! > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Larry Pingree > > Sr. Security Consultant > > Email: [email protected] > > > > SiegeWorks > > Company WebSite: http://www.siegeworks.com/ > > Security Installation, Training and Consulting > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Tim Holman <[email protected]> > > To: Tim Anderson <[email protected]>; > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [FW1] Nokia vs. NT > > > > > > > > > > Redundancy yes, load balancing no. At least not yet.... > > > Nokia's are just PCs with fancy, small, rackmountable boxes, running > > > FreeBSD. > > > They are reliable, and can be made into a fault tolerant pair, but then > so > > > can NT and the other platforms, + you can load share using Stonebeat. > > > If I had to spec up firewalls again, I'd probably choose NT, as Nokia > did > > > seem rather expensive for the task in hand, and benchmarks show that the > > > Nokia platform is actually slower than the equivalent PC running NT. > > > Then again, I'd probably change my mind, as the Nokia's are very easy to > > > setup - stick them in, pre-hardened, load up firewall + the licenses and > > > away you go. > > > Saves faffing around with NT, but if you already know how to harden NT, > it > > > doesn't take too long to faff around with it ! > > > Stick with what you know.... it will cost you less ! > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Tim Anderson <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Sent: 15 February 2001 16:51 > > > Subject: [FW1] Nokia vs. NT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are looking into switching our existing Firewall platform from > > NT/Win2K > > > > to Nokia. I am curious to see how those of you using Checkpoint on > > Nokia > > > > like it. > > > > We are hoping that this switch will lower down time and decrease > > > > administrative overhead. The specific model we are planning to > purchase > > > is > > > > the Nokia 440. We plan to purchase two to provide load balancing and > > > > redundancy. > > > > Of course our vendor likes our plan but I want to hear from some > admins > > > that > > > > are actually supporting this platform. Thanks in advance! > > > > > > > > Tim Anderson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > > > ==== > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the > instructions > > at > > > > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > > ==== > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions > at > > > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html > > > > > > ============================================================================ > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > ==== > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at > > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html > > > ============================================================================ > ==== > > > > > ============================================================================ ==== > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html > ============================================================================ ==== > ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|