I also like the possibilities of using ATM and LANE/CIP for intranet
environments. While I have not had the chance, but currently planning on
doing some testing, I want to test running multiple logical LAN's into a
single F/W with an ATM interface. It seems this would be much more
effective and cost efficient than building several firewalls due to
physical interface restrictions.
While this can be done with an enet interface & tagging (ISL's & cisco),
ATM provides a standard that is available today.
In addition, the ATM solution allows it to integrate into a WAN environment
when used in conjunction with ATM/Frame Interworking much more easily than
frame only services.
Gregory Otto e-mail gdo @
New Frontier Consulting WWW http://www.newf.com
Houston, Texas Voice (713) 718-1358
> From: dnewman @
> To: gdo @
com; firewalls @
> Subject: Re: ATM adapter for SUN
> Date: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 2:03 PM
> >Don't rememember if this is true or not, but I thought I once saw
> >were Firewall 1 did over a 100 mbits with dual ATM adapters. I am
> >I saw this back in a Sept 96 Data Comm blurb. I need to see if I can
> Hi Greg,
> I wrote that blurb in Data Comm. It was actually an Alpha box with
> OC-3 NICs running fwtk, and they achieved ~110 Mbit/s throughput,
> though I've since heard the test involved TTCP-like traffic and not
> live sessions.
> An ATM service provider took this as "proof" that Alphas are quicker
> than Sparcs, which at the time had been clocked no faster than 90
> Mbit/s on OC-3s. I think that's a silly argument, especially since
> don't know that both were offered the same kinds of traffic. The key
> point, to me, is that a firewall can protect segments at OC-3 rates
> without significantly degrading performance.
> David Newman
> Data Communications magazine