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 the
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
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
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
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
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.
There is something else to think about:
In case you are missing a feature you can offer a donation to get it in where
vendors just laugh at you or ignore your request or even do it yourself as the
source is all at your fingertips.
Holger
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
