RE: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set
From: Paul Stewart (pauls_at_nexicom.net)
Date: 06/02/03
- Previous message: Bob Wanamaker - Avant Systems, Inc.: "RE: [fw-wiz] PIX501 PAT and Static NAT problems"
- In reply to: Noonan, Wesley: "RE: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set"
- Next in thread: Duncan Sharp: "Re: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "'Noonan, Wesley'" <Wesley_Noonan@bmc.com>, <avraham@jct.ac.il>, <firewall-wizards@icsalabs.com> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:39:19 -0400
I can't disagree with what you are saying. It came down to the refurb/used
market for this customer segment. Getting used routers etc. we've found to
be *much* easier than PIX's. Once we get into a customer 100+ then cost
becomes a side issue normally..:)
-----Original Message-----
From: Noonan, Wesley [mailto:Wesley_Noonan@bmc.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:46 PM
To: 'Paul Stewart'; avraham@jct.ac.il; firewall-wizards@icsalabs.com
Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set
Just curious, but why not throw a PIX 501 or 506 in the small offices?
Obviously, needing something other than an Ethernet interface requires a
router, but in my experience a lot of small offices are hanging off of DSL,
Cable Modem or Ethernet wired BANs (building area networks) so a PIX (or any
of the other SOHO firewalls) works really good.
Wes Noonan, MCSE/CCNA/CCDA/NNCSS/Security+
Senior QA Rep.
BMC Software, Inc.
(713) 918-2412
wnoonan@bmc.com
http://www.bmc.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Stewart [mailto:pauls@nexicom.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 07:21
> To: avraham@jct.ac.il; firewall-wizards@icsalabs.com
> Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set
>
> I posed this question previously and was told that almost all features
> at incorporated into the IOS. The features I use most are in both but
> I'm sure there's features that are not in the IOS FW Feature Set..
> Kinda wish someone
> had a list of what's *not* in the IOS... Anyone? :)
>
> My adoption of using IOS for firewalling has been that of for small
> clients (under 100 workstations).... Anything over 100 or so users I
> use a PIX box specifically....
>
> Take care,
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com
> [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com] On Behalf Of
> avraham shir-el (arthur sherman)
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 5:33 PM
> To: firewall-wizards@icsalabs.com
> Subject: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set
>
>
>
> gentlemen:
> a cisco engineer recently told me that the plan for the above 2
> products is %100 feature convergence and that currently, there's about
> %80 of the features of pix present in the ios firewall feature set.
> any comments as to
> the reality of the above?
>
> tnx
> ams
> avraham shir-el
> director of computing center
> jerusalem college of technology - machon lev
> p. 972-2-675-1163 _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
> http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
> http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Bob Wanamaker - Avant Systems, Inc.: "RE: [fw-wiz] PIX501 PAT and Static NAT problems"
- In reply to: Noonan, Wesley: "RE: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set"
- Next in thread: Duncan Sharp: "Re: [fw-wiz] pix vs. ios firewall feature set"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
