Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??
From: Bennett Todd (bet@rahul.net)
Date: 11/18/02
- Next message: Bennett Todd: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Previous message: Carson Gaspar: "Re: [fw-wiz] segmentation of DMZs"
- In reply to: Paul D. Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Next in thread: R. DuFresne: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Reply: R. DuFresne: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net> To: "Paul D. Robertson" <proberts@patriot.net> Date: Mon Nov 18 10:19:01 2002
2002-11-16-11:05:40 Paul D. Robertson:
> > Might park a snort on it while I was about it, too.
>
> Hmmm, isn't that adding a level of bloatedness that's a bit extreme?
Depends on the context. If the environment supports the investment
to have multiple boxes implementing the firewall, then this would
certainly be one of the first choices for moving off onto a separate
box. If not, I don't think the bloat is that bad; for small shops,
the performance impact isn't that bad, and the code seems (in my
experience anyway) nice and stable. It's not as tiny as it once was,
but it's still not that bloated by modern standards anyway:-).
-Bennett
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Next message: Bennett Todd: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Previous message: Carson Gaspar: "Re: [fw-wiz] segmentation of DMZs"
- In reply to: Paul D. Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Next in thread: R. DuFresne: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Reply: R. DuFresne: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proxy and Stateful together ??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]