What are the general business and technical cases to go
with pfsense over turn key appliances like Cisco or Sonicwall etc?
Thanks
Well for me...I have commit access to pfSense, I don't for Sonic or Cisco ;-P
For everyone else...
1. Good luck getting a quick patch for a small bug from Cisco -
personal experience tells me that unless it's a sev 1 (network down)
AND you have a good support contract with them, you won't get an
Not to seem repetitive, but if you are making a real business case to your management (which I have been called upon to do several times as a network security consultant):1. The initial capital cost of pfSense of off-the-shelf hardware is far lower for pfSense than commercial products.2. Operationa
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 11:21 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Justficiations for going with pfsense over Cisco
Router or PIX, Sonicwall etc?
Not to seem repetitive, but if you are making a real business case to your
management (which I have been
This is interesting, I'm about to pitch a pfSense solution to my boss for a new remote office. It will be a site to site VPN (T1) with VoIP traffic, possible 50 employees. He's a name brand kinda guy so he's thrown out Sonicwall and Cisco, I'm not a big fan of the PIX nor the cost that comes with i
Jeff,
The appropriate hardware for various connections has been discussed
myriad times on this list and in the FAQ. For your situation a WRAP
would probably handle most things, although the VPN traffic could be a
bit more than the CPU on a WRAP could handle. Certainly you could do
everythin
Well, we had recently the pfSense running in a Pentium 200Mhz :-)
We changed now but it was running dmz, vpn, ipsec, traffic shapping,
... to the entire company ;-)
[]'s
On 5/15/06, Gary Buckmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff,
The appropriate hardware for various connections has been disc
Jeff,
Assuming you are talking about T1 to internet and want to carry VoIP
in the tunnel, be careful. The main problem is that you must be able
to establish some kind of QOS through that tunnel. I am not sure
that you can prioritize traffic in the tunnel. If you can prioritize
prior to encryptio
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:39:02PM -0500, Gary Buckmaster wrote:
> The appropriate hardware for various connections has been discussed
> myriad times on this list and in the FAQ. For your situation a WRAP
> would probably handle most things, although the VPN traffic could be a
> bit more than
Hi,
On 5/16/06, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Easy solution to that -- buy a crypto accelerator. Even without,
4 MBit/s symmetrical throughput should be doable with a wrap.
Can you also please comment on the on-chip crypto of the VIA
CPUs?
- Raja
Check:
HiFn
Broadcomm
Cavium
-Mensagem original-
De: Raja Subramanian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviada em: terça-feira, 16 de maio de 2006 16:20
Para: support@pfsense.com
Assunto: Re: [pfSense Support] Justficiations for going with pfsense over
Cisco Router or PIX, Sonicwall etc?
Hi
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:49:35AM +0530, Raja Subramanian wrote:
> Can you also please comment on the on-chip crypto of the VIA
> CPUs?
My only VIAs have a RNG generator -- even no AES acceleration.
I personally wouldn't bother with VIAs until they ship an
Eden C7 with dual-NICs -- and please, m
On 5/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff,Assuming you are talking about T1 to internet and want to carry VoIPin the tunnel, be careful. The main problem is that you must be able
to establish some kind of QOS through that tunnel. I am not surethat you can prioritize traffic in
13 matches
Mail list logo
