Re: PIX 7.2 Vs m0n0wall

"Jimmy Bones (Mhottie)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.security.firewalls.m0n0wall
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> As with any two different solutions you're comparing, the PIX can do some
things m0n0wall can't, and the reverse is true as well.

Right, I am thinking we should/could provide a more comprehensive comparison
between the two directly. PIX OS 7 added a lot of new functions to the PIX.

-J


On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Chris Buechler <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Jimmy Bones (Mhottie)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hey Manuel and Guys,
> >
> > Been using m0n0 for a long time now and happy to see 1.31 out.
> >
> > This has been asked many times in the past (last reference I could find
> was
> > in 2006) and I think we should re-visit the topic briefly.
> >
> > PIX Vs m0n0wall -
> >
> > You can get PIX OS 7.2 on the 506e hardware easily. This is a Pentium III
> > 300 (600 in my case) and 256mb Ram (upgradeable comes with 32mb).
> >
> > Using 7.2 as a reference point and m0n0 1.31 - can we can get a good
> > compare/contrast/performance going for this?
> >
>
> Things really haven't changed since it was last discussed. As with any
> two different solutions you're comparing, the PIX can do some things
> m0n0wall can't, and the reverse is true as well. It depends on what
> you specifically need in your network as to which is a better fit, or
> whether either would suffice.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.