claykin
join:2003-08-22
Fort Lauderdale, FL | New USG Datasheet on Zyxel.com shows better performance Check out the V4 datasheet. »ftp://ftp2.zyxel.com/ZyWALL_USG_20/dat···20_4.pdf
I immediately notice the Firewall throughput for the USG20/50/100/200 have all been increased.
I assume this is due to the pending V3.x firmware? If so, bring it on!! |
|
|
|
| Interesting, the USG20/50 Max. Concurrent IPSec VPN Tunnels has also been bumped up from the old doc I have. |
|
 bbarreraPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
| reply to claykin
I'm not hopeful about firewall performance bump, as I use the UTM services and if they are the same (as I suspect) then its no win for me. The USG50 doesn't have enough power for 25M/25Mbps Internet when all the UTM services are enabled (firewall performance if fine, but don't bother turning on IDP and/or AV). |
|
claykin
join:2003-08-22
Fort Lauderdale, FL | I'm still trying to figure out whether UTM services are truly useful. My experience with network AV solutions is that they are at best a first line of defense and in most cases nothing more than a screen door trying to keep out thieves.
Enlighten me, please. Seriously.
The one thing I wish Zyxel would improve is EPS (Endpoint Security). That can be useful! First thing, support x64 OS! |
|
 mozerdLight Will Pierce The DarknessPremium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON
2 edits | Protecting the perimeter as a 1st line of defence is very desirable and when done effectively provides for stable network operations -- lots [if not all] of malware can be stoped -- the problem with underpowered gear like the 20/50/100/200 is that they do not have adequate resources and horsepower to handle the load under load so end-user experience [slower network response] is somewhat diminished when UTM services are active.
malware [which covers a great deal more than just viruses] has achieved a high level of sophistication. |
|
