First of all, the Pix515E is running on an Intel Celeron 433Mhz, not PII.
I have customers that have no problem migrating from CheckPoint NG (FP2) over
to Pix515 firewall (running version 6.2(2)). At the same time, I've seen
customers
having problems with the Pix firewalls that I have to migrate
Hi All,
I have a question regarding PIX perfromance. and wanted to see what the
experienced PIX crowd here has seen before.
I am migrating from two seperate Checkpoint 4.1 boxes running on PC's (PIII
733) to one failover 515e bundle. The 515e has a PII 433 cpu in it.
The environment is an on
Dear All,
I would first thank you for your worthfull contributions which enable me to
solve the problem! The problem was that the interfaces is set to full duplex
(10full or 100full commands), and when i change the configuration to 10base
and 100base the problem has been solved totally !! I'm stil
I would hate to ask the obvious but are your interfaces showing high error
rates? Are they at half duplex? Are they at 10mb? Is the switch the
inside interface is plugged into stable? what about the router on the other
side?
-Patrick
>>> "Mohannad Khuffash" 03/20/02 02:47PM >>>
Dear all,
My
ECTED]
Cc:
Subject: PIX performance problem again ! [7:38955]
Dear all,
My problem with th PIX still present! the throughput between my inside
cleints an the out side ftp server still very low ! the only node between
them is the PIX,and
you do so.
-Kent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Mohannad Khuffash
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PIX performance problem again ! [7:38955]
Dear all,
My problem with th PIX still present! the
Dear all,
My problem with th PIX still present! the throughput between my inside
cleints an the out side ftp server still very low ! the only node between
them is the PIX,and the speed cann't be more than 50K B/s, i have checked
the two cisco fixing problem for such like these cases: DNS pointer
The new Windows 2000 VPN Concentrator v3 client is out, but won't be
supported on the PIX until the v6 software is released (and some newer
version of IOS to support it on routers). Before dropping money to upgrade
the PIX, I'd suggest looking at the Cisco Concentrator line which is geared
specif
""Kevin O'Gilvie"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I only have 32 megs on the 515r, the upgrade adds 32 m and a licence which
> makes it 515UR for 6k. I was thinking that it was pptp, but since I am
using
> local authentication, users authentic
1 2:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pix Performance Issues
I only have 32 megs on the 515r, the upgrade adds 32 m and a licence which
makes it 515UR for 6k. I was thinking that it was pptp, but since I am using
local authentication, users authenticate at the fw w
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Pix Performance Issues
>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:32:31 -0500
>
>Yes. It's not a PIX issue causing the slow VPN. It's a Microsoft issue.
>I
>validated this by putting a vpn test box outside the firewall.
atements (as required in docs).
How much memory do you have in the PIX?
Allen
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin O'Gilvie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Pix Performance Issues
> I have a pix 515 R, and
You've asked several questions here and I will give you my take on them.
I have found that the PPTP client is slower than the Cisco Secure client,
but you don't have any real choice for the moment. It is also possible that
you've overloaded the PIX with concurrent VPN users. The encryption
proc
PPTP VPN does put a lot overhead on your PIX, more than IPsec. The good
news is that VPN client for 2k already available and we just started to
rollout.
Ruihai
""Kevin O'Gilvie"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a pix 515 R, and I have n
I have a pix 515 R, and I have noticed that I have to clear xlate at least
once a day in order to keep it from slowing down internet access, also I
have users complaining on how slow the vpn is, I am using ms pptp, due to
the fact that the windows 2000 client has not come out yet. How can I get
It *was* broke.
After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I finally tried shutting down the
primary.
Bandwidth was immediately improved.
S, I'm calling this a faulty 515 primary system E0 interface.
Best, G.
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http:
How's about a little 'real-life' observation on a 515UR/failover package:
Problem:
external limited to ~850Kbit/s since install. Normal range, 2.5-3.5Mbits/s
internal ether on 515 does not exceed 140-160KBytes/s
internal ether has unusual number of IP transport retransmissions.
no apparent loops/
ll below the PIX's
> ability.
> full rated capacity of the
> wire anyway :)>
>
>
> Thanks!
> TJ
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Groupstudy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 22:47
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 22:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PIX Performance
Bottlenecks almost always end up being the smallest pipe on a network. In
your case you have a possible 4 T1's which even when all are fully utilized
will only pass around
bout the matter at hand
than you do :-)
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:33 PM
Subject: PIX Performance
> Hello everyone. Here is the situation. A client of mine plans on setting
up
> some DMZs off
Hello everyone. Here is the situation. A client of mine plans on setting up
some DMZs off either a PIX 515 or 525. Servers will consist of smtp relay,
ftp, 2 to 4 web servers, 2 OWA servers, and 5 to 10 web app servers. Inside
(the internal LAN), there are about 10 servers, some database,
21 matches
Mail list logo
