I have not seen any odd things happening yet with filters. Could you be more specific? I think I disagree about filtering not being a solution. You seemed to making a case for a "black hat" trying to hert performance on the MAX by connecting to the Immediate Modem service. If you have a simple two part packet filter to block access to the Immediate Modem port on the MAX from all untrusted networks, then the "black hat" will be unable to attack. I agree that adding a limit on the number of Immediate Modem connections seems like a reasonable new feature. > Let's be honest here, Just how much packet filtering can you do on a MAX > before you start to tax the I960 and start to affect performance? Enough - packet filters [currently] do not add that much overhead to a connection on a MAX. I have not been able to measure the performance change due to a simple packet filter - the change gets lost in the noise. ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09598.html">Re: (ASCEND) For Sale:Max 4000</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09597.html">Re: (ASCEND) Feature Requests and Ascend?</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09622.html">Re: (ASCEND) Feature Requests and Ascend? (Immediate Modem)</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09518.html">(ASCEND) about Ascend Radius and M4k</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="mail17.html#09596"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd198.html#09596"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>