[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Ulrik Lunddahl \(PROconsult\)" <ul at proconsult dot dk>
 To:  "Don Munyak" <don dot munyak at gmail dot com>, "Sea" <seaeric at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  SV: [m0n0wall] PIX vs. Monowall
 Date:  Thu, 11 May 2006 09:35:32 +0200
Don Munyak [mailto:don dot munyak at gmail dot com] Wrote:

> This is a VERY vague question even for this noob. Just as a very
> humble suggestion, maybe list what it is you need the PIX for.

> M0n0wall is rock solid with a very large user base and lots of
> knowledgeable people willing to help where possible.

This might be even more vague, it fits perfectly on both M0n0wall and PIX.

You can add to the PIX that it's not very easy to configure, but if you have many boxes using
configuration files might be more handy and requere less work.

Getting help on Cisco PIX might also cost you a lot more, but on the other hand, you will never run
dry of Cisco PIX professionals, so if you business is at risk, money can always buy you a solution
if you have PIX hardware in place.

The PIX is not free, hardware is very expensive and software upgrades is a running cost.

In my environment we replaced a series of PIX515UR with M0n0wall running on 2U PC servers, and i
feel that our security got a very large boost and we now have more options when using out internet
lines, all simply because the configuration process is easy and clear, configuration errors are
almost no more, and configuration change request are completed 10 times faster.

I'm happy that i do not have 25 boxes or more, because there is no central management tools.


Best regards
Ulrik Lunddahl

Sales Manager

Tel: +45 63113333 - Tel dir: +45 63113341 - Mobil: +45 26363341 - Fax: +45 63113344
E-mail: ul at proconsult dot dk - Web site: www.proconsult.dk