Re: [fw-wiz] Multiple small switches vs. a single big one; Granularity of control

From: Mike Meredith (mike.meredith_at_port.ac.uk)
Date: 03/03/04

  • Next message: Melson, Paul: "RE: [fw-wiz] PIX to PIX IPSec Tunnel Through a PIX"
    To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.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
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards



  • Next message: Melson, Paul: "RE: [fw-wiz] PIX to PIX IPSec Tunnel Through a PIX"