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 FWSMs appear to retail around $23,000 - that's on top of the 6500 chassis and line cards you need to use it - not exactly a fair comparison. For that money you could quite easily put together a farm of boxes that would exceed 5GB/s throughput aggregate - whether you'd want to is a different question. P. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
