Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall scaling



And if manglement is THAT clueless, you'll need that big a box to handle all the sessions from the trojans, spyware, and other crap that manglement and their kid brother download onto the company boxes. . .

My rule: there's no such thing as too big a firewall. . .

And for smaller companies, if you can dedicate part of it to viruses, malware, and email de-crapping, all the better. You don't have the manpower to do the jobs right: let the hardware do it for you . . . .
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto:mjr@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 04:19 PM
To: 'Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List',
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall scaling

Sami Ghourabi wrote:
I'm trying to convince management that a firewall that supports 32000
concurrent sessions is enough for an organization that has a single WAN
internet link, and about 60-100 users, but I'm lacking arguments.


Sami - you obviously work for retards. If they need to have arguments
from their technical staff regarding matters of technical obviousness,
they clearly don't understand the problem and aren't likely to ever
understand it.

My suggestion is that you tell them "Industry Expert Marcus Ranum
SAYS that for 100 concurrent users you need EXACTLY 3,560
concurrent session capability." It's based on a formula that I
would publish, except that, unfortunately, it was classified by the
IAEA.

mjr.

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards



_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards