[25199] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FW: your mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex P. Rudnev)
Fri Sep 24 07:50:05 1999
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:32:28 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@Relcom.EU.net>
To: "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rkuhljr@uol.com.br>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <004101bf0640$6758f520$5cf1e7c8@users.uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990924152920.25341k-100000@virgin.relcom.eu.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hmm, you need to perform UPSTREAM traffic, not your internal traffic.
Hope CISCO people answer exact performance (through I can look for it
myself), but really you does need the performance to develop all
incoming/outgoing traffic, this means - if you have E3 upstream, you need
E3 performance.
And it hardly depends of the traffic itself. ACL's does not use much CPU,
but _protocol inspection_ (sorry, there is some other word in IOS for it,
I do not remember exactly) does use a lot of CPU.
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:53:47 -0300
> From: Rubens Kuhl Jr. <rkuhljr@uol.com.br>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Cc: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com>
> Subject: FW: your mail
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have listened to their seminar about this... As the simple L5 firewall
> > it's not bad, through it realise the fixed set of ruls and defends your
> > from the simple SMTP attacks only. But anyway, IOS FW is just what 90% of
> > the customers need...
>
> How would IOS FW perform on Cisco 7x00-class equipment with 100M-to-Gigabit
> traffic ?
>
>
>
> Rubens Kuhl Jr.
>
>
>
>
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
