[unisog] Traffic Shapers

Fred Portnoy fportnoy at mail.plymouth.edu
Wed Jul 16 13:00:20 GMT 2008


We too have been using PacketShaper since a year or so after Napster first appeared. PacketShaper is very powerful and I find I use it as a diagnostic tool as well as for controlling/shaping traffic.

New approaches to configuration are sometimes necessary as the traffic patterns change, such as lots of P2P going encrypted, for instance. The tool is up to the challenge. 


Fred Portnoy
Network Analyst
Plymouth State University

"unfettered by edgy modernisms, or classical influences"

----- Original Message -----
From: unisog-request at lists.dshield.org
To: unisog at lists.dshield.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:00:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: unisog Digest, Vol 52, Issue 11

Send unisog mailing list submissions to
	unisog at lists.dshield.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.sans.org/mailman/listinfo/unisog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	unisog-request at lists.dshield.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	unisog-owner at lists.dshield.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of unisog digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Traffic Shapers (Kaminski, Eryk G.)
   2. Re: Traffic Shapers (Julian Y. Koh)
   3. Re: Traffic Shapers (Nagel, Lonnie)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:13 -0500
From: "Kaminski, Eryk G." <e.kaminski at sxu.edu>
Subject: [unisog] Traffic Shapers
To: <unisog at lists.dshield.org>
Message-ID: <F20E00A1D7010B43AD969CC619E411500101E745 at EX1.SXU.local>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I will need to procure a traffic shaper soon. I have it narrowed down to
Packeteer and NetEqulizer. Besides the large difference in pricing, does
anyone have any pro/cons for either device? I have heard Packeteer
requires frequent fine tuning.

Eryk Kaminski  MBA
Information Security Specialist
Saint Xavier University



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:52:33 -0500
From: "Julian Y. Koh" <kohster at northwestern.edu>
Subject: Re: [unisog] Traffic Shapers
To: UNIversity Security Operations Group <unisog at lists.dshield.org>
Message-ID: <p06240814c4a2cc436a70 at northwestern.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 16:39 -0500 7/15/2008, Kaminski, Eryk G. wrote:
>I will need to procure a traffic shaper soon. I have it narrowed down to
>Packeteer and NetEqulizer. Besides the large difference in pricing, does
>anyone have any pro/cons for either device? I have heard Packeteer
>requires frequent fine tuning.

I have no experience with NetEqualizer, but we've used a Packeteer
PacketShaper here for many years.  I wouldn't say that frequent fine tuning
has been necessary, but that will vary with how you set it up, like any
product.  Certainly some amount of regular monitoring is necessary,
especially when looking for new classifications and the like, but for the
most part it's pretty trouble-free for us.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 9.8.3.4028

wj8DBQFIfRwhDlQHnMkeAWMRAl4DAKDLWJe0yWISbw7ltyPW3dWXqaDM8gCgqp/U
GS199es7+gurbbgZvqcrz8g=
=TeL6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Julian Y. Koh                         <mailto:kohster at northwestern.edu>
Network Engineer                                   <phone:847-467-5780>
Telecommunications and Network Services         Northwestern University
PGP Public Key:<http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:22:07 -0500
From: "Nagel, Lonnie" <lnagel at SFCCMO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [unisog] Traffic Shapers
To: "UNIversity Security Operations Group" <unisog at lists.dshield.org>
Message-ID:
	<B310E87A3CDC1E4EBF5B60857BCB9404041039AF at SFCCX2.SFCCMO.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

We have also been using Packetshaper for many years and did the same
cost analysis as you - way back then.  I can't speak for Netequalizer
but we have been very pleased with the performance and benefits of the
Packeteer/Bluecoat product.

As to the fine tuning I would offer that :

If this is your 1st experience with an add on appliances - you will be
initially almost overwhelmed with the learning curve and "fine tuning"
or tweaking of the box.

If you have some significant experience with add on appliances and know
what you want the box to do for you - it could be a "set it and forget
it" type of installation.

I have found, however, that even with lots of experience in this type of
product usage - I do spend lots of time with the box which is more of a
"choice" than a "necessity".


* Lonnie Nagel * Network Manager * State Fair Community College *
Sungard Higher Education Managed Services * 3201 W 16th  Street  *
Sedalia, MO  65301 * 660-596-7314 * lnagel at sfccmo.edu *
 
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system. Errors
using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all.

-----Original Message-----
From: unisog-bounces at lists.dshield.org
[mailto:unisog-bounces at lists.dshield.org] On Behalf Of Julian Y. Koh
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:53 PM
To: UNIversity Security Operations Group
Subject: Re: [unisog] Traffic Shapers

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 16:39 -0500 7/15/2008, Kaminski, Eryk G. wrote:
>I will need to procure a traffic shaper soon. I have it narrowed down
to
>Packeteer and NetEqulizer. Besides the large difference in pricing,
does
>anyone have any pro/cons for either device? I have heard Packeteer
>requires frequent fine tuning.

I have no experience with NetEqualizer, but we've used a Packeteer
PacketShaper here for many years.  I wouldn't say that frequent fine
tuning
has been necessary, but that will vary with how you set it up, like any
product.  Certainly some amount of regular monitoring is necessary,
especially when looking for new classifications and the like, but for
the
most part it's pretty trouble-free for us.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 9.8.3.4028

wj8DBQFIfRwhDlQHnMkeAWMRAl4DAKDLWJe0yWISbw7ltyPW3dWXqaDM8gCgqp/U
GS199es7+gurbbgZvqcrz8g=
=TeL6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Julian Y. Koh                         <mailto:kohster at northwestern.edu>
Network Engineer                                   <phone:847-467-5780>
Telecommunications and Network Services         Northwestern University
PGP Public Key:<http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>
_______________________________________________
unisog mailing list
unisog at lists.dshield.org
https://lists.sans.org/mailman/listinfo/unisog



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
unisog mailing list
unisog at lists.dshield.org
https://lists.sans.org/mailman/listinfo/unisog

End of unisog Digest, Vol 52, Issue 11
**************************************


More information about the unisog mailing list