Re: [fw-wiz] Multiple small switches vs. a single big one; Granularity of control
From: Mike Meredith (mike.meredith_at_port.ac.uk)
To: email@example.com Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:40:05 +0000
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:36:01 -0500, Sloane, David wrote:
> Can anyone with some good Cisco depth rebut these assumptions about a
> 6500-series switch "losing it's configuration?"
That's not me ... I'm still learning, but ...
> nodes). If you really need gigabit speed firewall throughput between
> those networks, the FWSM will probably give you the best throughput
> because it sits on the highest-speed link. For example, the switch
> fabric on the 6500 series is up to 720Gbps, depending on the
The supervisor engine may be capable of 720Gbps, but the FWSM certainly
isn't. A single FWSM gives you 5Gbps; four gives you 20Gbps.
> supervisor engine. The FWSM looks like a variant on the PIX OS (with
> a different development/testing cycle) and the feature set seems more
> limited than the current PIX.
I haven't spotted many limits on the feature set, but yes it's much like
the PIX OS but lagging slightly.
-- Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer University of Portsmouth: Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security Before long, Microsoft will attempt to patent the alphabet (hoping we'll have to pay royalties to use our keyboards and keep their stock solid). -- Phil Paxton
firewall-wizards mailing list
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored