Re: cisco 1600
From: Beoweolf (Beoweolf_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 08/12/03
- Next message: Hugo Drax: "Nightmare worm scenario"
- Previous message: Samson: "Re: Norton vs.Sygate or Tiny"
- In reply to: James Lundy: "cisco 1600"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:43:51 GMT
Ask your "guru" to justify his reasoning. He should have something more than
intuition to backup his statement, however, be prepared to pay for the
evaluation...since he is in the business he should be paid for providing the
research. Or you could look up the specs, on the net or by contacting Cisco
yourself. Do you have a valid reason to distrust his skill?
User friendly is a relative term, if you have a security background ,
understand TCP/IP protocol and are willing to put in the time...you
could/should be able to maintain a configured and running firewall with a
little work. Troubleshooting, design and inter connecting different products
from different vendors is a little harder. Just a thought, if it is easy to
setup, it probably is just as easy to defeat.
Yes, you could take your handme down platform, load it with Linix or Unix,
and install IPcop on it. That could be a cost effective solution. But you
are still left with the managment and administration conundrum? A badly
installed firewal is worse than no firewall> With out a firewall, you are
wary and know you are exposed. With a poorly configured firewall, you have a
false sense of security and may become lax.
"James Lundy" <jlundy2001@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nYWZa.25957$tf.22635@lakeread03...
> Currently have a cisco 1600 working very well as FW. DSL on one
> side and 10/100 Ethernet on the other. Network traffic less
> than 10%.
>
> Had to open port for one of our three servers to connect over VPN
> to a billing service provider. Network person had some trouble
> getting it to work; but, at last did so. Said unit was
> restricted on memory and required additional public IP address.
>
> When asked to add second VPN access, I was informed we do not
> have enough memory and we will need a third public address. His
> company suggested a replacement Cisco at about $2000.
>
> Questions.
> 1. Is this unit that limited or is network guru the limited
> one?
>
> 2. Would something like IPCop work? I have a spare 350MH box
> with good NICs.
>
> 3. Would like to become self sufficient and eliminate $150 /
> hour charges. Have boxes become user friendly?
- Next message: Hugo Drax: "Nightmare worm scenario"
- Previous message: Samson: "Re: Norton vs.Sygate or Tiny"
- In reply to: James Lundy: "cisco 1600"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
