January 2007


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
cdmiller <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Resnet Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:46:57 -0700
text/plain (68 lines)
Hello All,

I'm not a regular member of the Resnet list, our resnet guy is.  I was
shown the post below and thought maybe folks could benefit from our
experience.  We moved over from packeteer to the netequalizer product in
the Summer of 2006.  We looked at a packeteer upgrade, allot, and
netequalizer.  At present we think netequalizer is still the best value
in the product space.

NetEqualizer has worked very well for us, completely hands off since our
initial installation.  We haven't changed it's configuration or rebooted
it for the past  190 days.  My write up on netequalizer is here:


We use netequalizer hand in hand with our firewall.  We instituted
stateful inspection for our Resnet at the firewall, disallowing incoming
 "non related" TCP and UDP traffic by default.  We allow students to
serve content if they register with us first, we have no requests for
that thus far.  Our RIAA complaints are non existent thanks to this
policy.  We allow P2P and gaming, thanks to the netequalizer.  We have
had only one complaint of a game not performing, and it was a user issue.

So our choice has thus far been netequalizer.  We'll see what their next
software release looks like.

- cameron

- cameron miller
- UNIX, GNU, Linux systems administrator
- outhouse attendant, bricoleur
- http://staff.adams.edu/~cdmiller
- http://portal.adams.edu/
- http://www2.adams.edu/onestop

I recently (Nov and Dec) did this evaluation.  We had an 8 mb link with
a Packetshaper 2500, and I needed to go to a 12mb link.  I evaluated a
NetEqualizer and an Allot Netenforcer.

The NetEqualizer did exactly what it said it would do with the claims
about distributing traffic fairly.  However, with the congestion on the
link it didn't live up to its full potential.  I also received 12 RIAA
notices when it was in place for 7 days.  I had only received 7 total
for the entire time of the semster (This was due to rebuilding the tree
with the packetshaper).  So the notices got it axed by the CIO.  It
would have still been my preferred choice.  Just from the standpoint of
put it in and forget it.  Very easy to setup.

I then got a demo of the Netenforcer.  I ended up buying this device
because what we were trying to accomplish was after squashing peer to
peer we want to divide bandwidth up evenly among the students online at
the time.  (dynamic sub partitions).  The Netenforcer 402 will do about
4000 channels (I think that is what they call them) where as I would
have had to go to a packetshaper 7000 for about 2 times the $$$.  The
netenforcer 402 was several thousand dollars cheaper than a comparable
PS 3500.  Once you get to know how the netenforcer works compared to the
PS, it is an easy transistion, and the interface is easier to use."

You are subscribed to the ResNet-L mailing list.

To subscribe, unsubscribe or search the archives,
go to http://LISTSERV.ND.EDU/archives/resnet-l.html