John,
I would assume that these are on lucant.com site? Or is there a different URL??
Steven
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 3/6/2000 at 5:33 PM John Adams wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Ashley Culver wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I made an enquiry a little while back about F\W's with minimum impact on
>> installation - thanks to all who responded !
>>
>> Two products seem to stand out. The Lucent 'Brick', which acts as a bridge
>> rather than a router and the Netscreen-100, which has a 'transparent' mode.
>> The Lucent product seems pretty clear about itself. It bridges rather than
>
>The Brick has some noticeable advantages over most of the firewalls out
>there; you can go back in 'time' on the firewall and see all of the
>traffic that the firewall has passed ( great for IDS!), it's interfaces
>are seen as four independent interfaces (unlike the PIX which groups
>things into seperate, non duplicatable security levels) and it has the
>concept of a seperate management station, which runs in Java.
>
>Also, the brick itself runs a virtual machine, which the firewall code
>runs on top of (similiar to the Java VM, but developed by lucent expressly
>for the Brick)
>
>If our compnay hadn't been manhandled into buying the PIX by Cisco's
>smartstart program, I would have purchased about 8 of these boxes. They're
>great firewalls and they're so easy to admin.
>
>After running a collection of PIXes for the last few months I'm not
>pleased. The command structure is difficult to deal with, logging options
>are excessive (no filtering, etc) and it is difficult to admin a large
>collection of them at once. Lucent's management console gives you access
>to a number of bricks, over a secure encrypted interface.
>
>-john
>
>-
>[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.]
