Kazaa killer or broadband filler? 2 Packet shapers tested

How we tested  Packet shapers  Packet shaping devices: Netintact PacketLogic Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 Peribit SR-80*  Specifications How we tested Look out for...

How we tested

 Packet shapers

 Packet shaping devices:

 
Netintact PacketLogic
 
Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
 
Peribit SR-80*

 Specifications
 How we tested
 Look out for...
 Sample scenarios
 Editor's choice
 About RMIT
The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.

    How we tested

     Packet shapers

     Packet shaping devices:

     
    Netintact PacketLogic
     
    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
     
    Peribit SR-80*

     Specifications
     How we tested
     Look out for...
     Sample scenarios
     Editor's choice
     About RMIT
    The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

    We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

    The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

    We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

    The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

    Interoperability
    Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

    Futureproofing
    Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

    ROI
    The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

    Service
    What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

    Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.

    How we tested

     Packet shapers

     Packet shaping devices:

     
    Netintact PacketLogic
     
    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
     
    Peribit SR-80*

     Specifications
     How we tested
     Look out for...
     Sample scenarios
     Editor's choice
     About RMIT
    The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

    We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

    The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

    We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

    The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

    Interoperability
    Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

    Futureproofing
    Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

    ROI
    The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

    Service
    What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

    Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.

    How we tested

     Packet shapers

     Packet shaping devices:

     
    Netintact PacketLogic
     
    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
     
    Peribit SR-80*

     Specifications
     How we tested
     Look out for...
     Sample scenarios
     Editor's choice
     About RMIT
    The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

    We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

    The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

    We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

    The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

    Interoperability
    Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

    Futureproofing
    Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

    ROI
    The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

    Service
    What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

    Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.

    How we tested

     Packet shapers

     Packet shaping devices:

     
    Netintact PacketLogic
     
    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
     
    Peribit SR-80*

     Specifications
     How we tested
     Look out for...
     Sample scenarios
     Editor's choice
     About RMIT
    The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

    We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

    The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

    We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

    The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

    Interoperability
    Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

    Futureproofing
    Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

    ROI
    The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

    Service
    What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

    Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.

    How we tested

     Packet shapers

     Packet shaping devices:

     
    Netintact PacketLogic
     
    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
     
    Peribit SR-80*

     Specifications
     How we tested
     Look out for...
     Sample scenarios
     Editor's choice
     About RMIT
    The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

    We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

    The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

    We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

    The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

    Interoperability
    Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

    Futureproofing
    Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

    ROI
    The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

    Service
    What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

    Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.

    How we tested

     Packet shapers

     Packet shaping devices:

     
    Netintact PacketLogic
     
    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500
     
    Peribit SR-80*

     Specifications
     How we tested
     Look out for...
     Sample scenarios
     Editor's choice
     About RMIT
    The inside ports of both the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 and Netintact PacketLogic were plugged directly to a 3COM Gigabit switch, while the outside ports were plugged into a Nortel switch, which was connected to a router.

    We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.

    The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.

    We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.

    The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.

    Interoperability
    Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?

    Futureproofing
    Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?

    ROI
    The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.

    Service
    What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?

    Look out for ...

  • What speed link does the device support (2Mbps, 500Mbps) and will this be enough for your current and future needs?
  • Does the packet shaper use basic queuing or rate control?
  • How does the shaper perform classification (by port, by application)?
  • Does it produce any reporting?
  • What add-ons can you install (compression, firewall)?

    Sample scenarios

    1. Company: Burrell's Storage

      This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.

      Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.

      Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.

    2. Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants

      The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.

      Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.

      Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.

      Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.

      Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.

    Editor's Choice

    Packeteer PacketShaper 1500

    T&B Editor's choice
    The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is both the scenario winner and winner of the Editor's Choice award. The PacketShaper is somewhat stronger than the Netintact PacketLogic in quality of service. It also makes everything look easy. Installing, classifying, monitoring, and reporting was done with much greater ease. The new model will also do compression, which is a bonus.

    This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
    Click here for subscription information.