Note: The following is a re-send of a message that was badly damaged in transit.
Originally sent 11-26-95 5:54 am
>> I have been taken to task by Adam Horwitz <adam @
tripcom .
com> for my poor
>> choice of words when I wrote:
>>
>> "Doesn't anyone care that you now can see that the Firewall-1 Product
>> will pass a lot of packets (as check point has claimed) but, drops a lot of
>> packets under heavy load as compared to the Cyberguard product that tops
>> Firewall-1 at the traffic high end and dropped zero packets (Firewall Stress
>> Test Chart vs. Lost Sessions table)."
>>
>>
>> Adam says that "3 out of 1,000 is hardly "a lot"."
>>
>> As a zero defect kind of guy I will agree that "a lot" is in the eye of the
>> beholder. As a user, if you are one of the 3 who gets lost, 3 may be too
>> many.
>> At T1 pipe speed that works out to 3 failures every 7+ minutes. I would
>> not fly on an airline with that service record. I would not accept a
>> firewall
>> with that service record. Call me a perfectionist, I do not mind. I could
>> start a wild eyed rant about falling standards but I think the bandwidth is
>> not mine to consume. Read the article. Look at the tables. Draw your own
>> conclusions. If I am wrong tell me(Please use the list only if others may
>> be interested in your comments).
>
>Thank you so much for taking to arguing in public without even giving
>me the courtesy of one private reply. In case you did not notice,
>the message I sent you was not in public. I guess the fact that I
>agreed with your other points was totally overshadowed by my comment
>that I thought your choice of words on that one point was poor.
Adam, does cranberry sauce not agree with you? Did your message to me not
say
"I think you should post a correction to the list but then what do I know."
I did not say you flamed me. Where I come from "been taken to task" is a
polite term used among friends. I agreed with you that my use of "a lot"
needed at least an explaination. No flame of you was intended or implied.
The message was sent to you with cc made to the list.
>
>Since you were so quick to calculate the failures at T-1 pipe speed
>would you mind adjusting those numbers for real-world use?
I don't believe I said I calculated those numbers. If you don't like my
yardstick don't use it or post your own.
>You also failed to mention that I brought up the question of whether
>the OS was to current patch levels and how come the latest
>version of SunOS wasn't used. And as I also pointed out, these same
>questions apply to the other products reviewed.
I did not include them because I did notice the message you sent me was
not in public. I thought if you wanted to say this to the list you
would have. Since you have I will say that I agree with you in on this
issue. Patch levels is always a sticky point in side by side tests.
I believe any system tested should be patched to within at least 6 months
of current (latest) release. 3 months would be better but only if the
systems are widely deployed. This would less the "Bleeding-Edge" factor.
>
>By the way, my mailer, Elm, doesn't like your return address of
>
> janken @
rust .
net (Ken Stephens (Millennium Consulting))
>
>because of the double parenthesis. I haven't checked the revelant RFCs,
>but since you're a zero-defect kind of guy, you might want to take this
>into consideration if you like being "compatible" with everyone.
>
>--
>Adam Horwitz (708) 778-9531
>Tripcom Systems Inc. adam @
tripcom .
com
>
Being a zero defect kind of guy I have changed my return address to resolve
the problem it caused for your mailer. Next time I'm looking up RFCs I'll
let you know if its your mailer or mine that functions incorrectly (:^)>
Ken
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[] Ken Stephens email: Ken_Stephens @
miconsulting .
com []
[] Millennium Consulting http://www.rust.net/~janken/milconsu.html []
[] Janet Perry email: Janet_Perry @
miconsulting .
com []
[] Millennium Jewelry Collection www http://rust.net/~janken/index.html []
[] 28234 Diesing Drive Voice (810) 548-0152 []
[] Madison Heights, MI 48071 Fax (810) 548-0152 []
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
|
|
