I do not think there is anything wrong with the NOS, and yes NDS for NT could be
argued(which actually provides NT with a real directory - though I have seen it bomb
most nastily). Also, there are NDS clients of Solaris, and Linux to make then NDS
aware. As far as throughput, yes, there are stated stats for FW-1, but I can tell you
BM will not be as fast by virtue of the fact that it is an app proxy firewall. FW-1
will win on a throughput contest, but PIX will beat FW-1 when it comes to throughput
according tests done by Network Computing. Does that make PIX a better choice than
FW-1?? Well, what are you trying to achieve? What are the needs of the site?? That
is what I was stressing. I am not saying one is better than the other. If throughput
is a serious consideration, maybe that will give him ammo to push them to FW-1. If
not, again, it's a tough argument.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alyea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Checkpoint 4.0 vs Border Manager 3.5
>The most convincing argument could be in the NOS, not the firewall itself.
>BorderManager is nice if you have a homogeneous Novell network (though NDS for NT
>could be argued here).
>
>Also, I don't know if you can find BorderManager performance stats, but there are
>plenty of Firewall-1 stats out there for NT, Solaris and HP/UX (I'm talking about
>throughput here, not the BorderManager caching server).
>
>Just a couple thoughts.
>
>James Paterson wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or an idea where I can find some real
>world comparisons between the 2. We have just merged with a firm that uses Border
>Manager for their firewall, and Iam using Checkpoint and have for years.
>>
>> Iam trying to find some reasons that non-technical management will understand for
>using Checkpoint to connect the two office rather than Border Manager, as Border
>Manager is a lot cheaper. Try explaining statefull inspection to a MBA.
>>
>> They respective companies websites are not helpfull, as checkpoint has nothing on
>comparisons, and the Novell comparision is just plain wrong. (according to Novell,
>Checkpoint doesn't even support gopher as a service).
>>
>> Any leads / tips on this oranges to apples comparison would be appreciated.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> James
>>
>> -
>> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
>-
>[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
