I seem to recall a README file that indicated otherwise and noted
performance issues with 10/100
/mark
At 06:52 PM 11/30/00 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
>You mean that Checkpoint's documentation is sometimes misleading,
>incomplete, or wrong??? Perish the thought! ;-)
>
>
>-p
>
>"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
>neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/30/2000 09:31:35 AM
>
>To: Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM@IBMUS
>cc: "Larry Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Saso Virag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "firewalls_list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Emily's response to the rumors
>
>
>
>Note, I guess the documentation is wrong..
>At 05:10 PM 11/30/00 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
> > Hmmm, that link you attached didn't really have anything to do with
> >large rulebases. Besides, I've worked on CP firewalls that have 200+
> >rules, 600+ translation rules, and many thousands of objects, and rulebase
> >compilations have never taken longer than 5 minutes. Not that I recommend
> >a monster rulebase like that, its too large to manage, but we've been
>doing
> >that since 3.0a without trouble.
> >
> >
> >-p
> >
> >"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
> >neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>
>
>-
>[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.]
