Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (
More info?)
In terms of firewall performance (not the 1000 other features an IOS
router can give you), the Sonicwall wins hands down. Actually,
compared to a 2611XM, most firewalls win.
I'd still choose the 2611XM is the location called for it though, but
it simply cannot compete in raw speed. If the location has only 5 or
10 users, maybe even 20, off a single T1, it would probably be fine.
-Robert
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:36:17 -0500, Bill Adams
<badams@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
>Rob <bobh1234@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:70bcb0d1got58riggaqhld54pn3va1f3ul@4ax.com:
>
>> I use both and the Sonicwall is easily the more powerful and faster
>> firewall. Cisco IOS has a lot of cool features since the hardware and
>> software are modular, but if you don't need those features, the
>> Sonicwall is better.
>>
>> And if you don't have the Sonicwall yet, I recommend the newer 2040 or
>> 3060.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:19:50 -0500, Bill Adams
>> <badams@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a little project where I can use a Sonicwall Pro 330 or Cisco
>>>2611XM with firewall feature set as a firewall. I can't decide which
>>>would be the better choice. I know the sonicwall supports about
>>>128,000 concurrent connections, content filter, and virus. I am not
>>>sure about the concurrent connections with the cisco. Any thoughts
>>>would be appreciated.
>>
>
>Thanks for replying.
>Nothing has been purchased, there was just a pro 330 not really being
>used and a possible solution. I am not going to flood with all the
>details involved in this project but there are two fairly indentically
>priced solutions. One uses the firewall with the Cisco 2611-XM router
>and the other uses Sonicwall 4060 as the firewall. I am wanting to get
>opinions on how the Cisco 2611-XM firewall compares (mostly performance
>related) to the Sonicwall 4060.
>
>I know the sonicwall handles around 500,000 concurrent connections, can
>push 300mbit and is stateful. Surely the cisco is stateful, not sure
>about concurrent connections.
>
>Thanks
>
>Thanks again