<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Check Point Firewall Sizing in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Firewall-Sizing/m-p/13456#M925</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kindly advise me a correct firewall sizing with the following requirements:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Total throughput: 40Gbps&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Number of user: 30K&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Blade enabled: FW&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Firewall utilization should maintain around 20%~ only&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As per checking with CP Appliance Sizing Tool, CP23800 estimated SPU already goes up to 64% and we would like to eliminate the chassis option.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 05:45:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Darren_Phang</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-07-26T05:45:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Check Point Firewall Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Firewall-Sizing/m-p/13456#M925</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kindly advise me a correct firewall sizing with the following requirements:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Total throughput: 40Gbps&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Number of user: 30K&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Blade enabled: FW&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Firewall utilization should maintain around 20%~ only&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As per checking with CP Appliance Sizing Tool, CP23800 estimated SPU already goes up to 64% and we would like to eliminate the chassis option.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 05:45:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Firewall-Sizing/m-p/13456#M925</guid>
      <dc:creator>Darren_Phang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-26T05:45:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Firewall Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Firewall-Sizing/m-p/13457#M926</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Those requirements (specifically the 20% utilization piece) put you in chassis territory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The fastest non-chassis solution we offer today is&amp;nbsp;the 23900, which we just announced today.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Datasheet here:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A class="link-titled" href="https://www.checkpoint.com/downloads/product-related/datasheets/ds-23900-appliance.pdf" title="https://www.checkpoint.com/downloads/product-related/datasheets/ds-23900-appliance.pdf"&gt;https://www.checkpoint.com/downloads/product-related/datasheets/ds-23900-appliance.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:00:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Firewall-Sizing/m-p/13457#M926</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-26T20:00:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

