Hi, What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for over 1,000+ users/contexts? I have looked at Centrinet's Accessmanager and Barracuda NG Firewall. Any other players/products? Many Thanks in advance for the input,
Paloalto Networks build some nice gear ________________________________________ From: David Oramas [david.oramas@aptel.com.au] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 8:42 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Multitenant FWs Hi, What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for over 1,000+ users/contexts? I have looked at Centrinet's Accessmanager and Barracuda NG Firewall. Any other players/products? Many Thanks in advance for the input,
-----Original Message----- From: David Oramas [mailto:david.oramas@aptel.com.au] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:42 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Multitenant FWs
Hi, What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for over 1,000+ users/contexts? I have looked at Centrinet's Accessmanager and Barracuda NG Firewall. Any other players/products? Many Thanks in advance for the input,
When I worked on building out Verizon's Network Based Firewall solution many years ago, I chose Juniper NS-5400 platforms due to their multitenancy capabilities and ability to support literally thousands of virtual firewall contexts and many times that for users. This decision was made after an exhaustive analysis of competing solutions from Checkpoint, Cisco, and Juniper. Juniper's SRX line of products might make a good fit, but they currently don't have full Logical System support which would certainly be a requirement for any multi-tenant offering. However, Logical System support is on the roadmap so you might want to look into this depending on your timeframe for deployment. As the other list member pointed out, Palo Alto does make some really nice gear and I have really been impressed with their Application Layer Firewalling capability (Application Identification, Web Firewalling, etc), however, I was suitably unimpressed with their multitenant capability and think you might be hard pressed to offer such an offering to more than one customer using such a device. Stefan Fouant
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Stefan Fouant <sfouant@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Oramas [mailto:david.oramas@aptel.com.au] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:42 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Multitenant FWs
Hi, What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for over 1,000+ users/contexts? I have looked at Centrinet's Accessmanager and Barracuda NG Firewall. Any other players/products? Many Thanks in advance for the input,
one thing to keep in mind is that as near as I can tell no vendor (not a singl eone) has actual hard limits configurable for each tenant firewall instance. So, one can use all of the 'firewall rule' resources, one can use all of the 'route memory' ... leaving other instances flailing :( In my mind, unless you have very loose sla's or are highly overprovisioned... until vendors treat this basic problem this model is a failure.
When I worked on building out Verizon's Network Based Firewall solution many years ago, I chose Juniper NS-5400 platforms due to their multitenancy capabilities and ability to support literally thousands of virtual firewall contexts and many times that for users. This decision was made after an
yup.. too bad no actual customers showed up :( (well, not any in real numbers... though not due to the tech on the FW side, nor the engineering work)
As the other list member pointed out, Palo Alto does make some really nice gear and I have really been impressed with their Application Layer Firewalling capability (Application Identification, Web Firewalling, etc), however, I was suitably unimpressed with their multitenant capability and think you might be hard pressed to offer such an offering to more than one customer using such a device.
no support for actual limits on resources, eh? :( nothing on at least: memory dedicated to a tenant routing resources packet processing resources inspection rule resources bandwidth/through-put management operations (I'm sure I left some off, but the above would be an excellent thing to see vendors support with hard limits THAT I CAN CONFIGURE!!) -chris
-----Original Message----- From: christopher.morrow@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.morrow@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
one thing to keep in mind is that as near as I can tell no vendor (not a singl eone) has actual hard limits configurable for each tenant firewall instance. So, one can use all of the 'firewall rule' resources, one can use all of the 'route memory' ... leaving other instances flailing :(
Ahem, actually ScreenOS does support just such a thing through the use of resource profiles - with this you can limit the amount of CPU, Sessions, Policies, MIPs and DIPs (used for NAT), and other user defined objects such as address book entries, etc. that each VSYS can avail. This was one of the primary drivers behind our decision to utilize the NS-5400 for Verizon's NBFW (you remember that place right Chris, heh') Stefan Fouant
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Stefan Fouant <sfouant@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: christopher.morrow@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.morrow@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
one thing to keep in mind is that as near as I can tell no vendor (not a singl eone) has actual hard limits configurable for each tenant firewall instance. So, one can use all of the 'firewall rule' resources, one can use all of the 'route memory' ... leaving other instances flailing :(
Ahem, actually ScreenOS does support just such a thing through the use of resource profiles - with this you can limit the amount of CPU, Sessions, Policies, MIPs and DIPs (used for NAT), and other user defined objects such as address book entries, etc. that each VSYS can avail. This was one of the
good to know... I wonder how well it isolates.
primary drivers behind our decision to utilize the NS-5400 for Verizon's NBFW (you remember that place right Chris, heh')
i do, occasionally via the twitching :)
Stefan Fouant
-----Original Message----- From: christopher.morrow@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.morrow@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Ahem, actually ScreenOS does support just such a thing through the
use of
resource profiles - with this you can limit the amount of CPU, Sessions, Policies, MIPs and DIPs (used for NAT), and other user defined objects such as address book entries, etc. that each VSYS can avail. This was one of the
good to know... I wonder how well it isolates.
Ask the Vz marketing folks... oh, wait, 1 customer isn't really enough to demonstrate how well it isolates after all I guess ;)
primary drivers behind our decision to utilize the NS-5400 for Verizon's NBFW (you remember that place right Chris, heh')
i do, occasionally via the twitching :)
Hehe... Stefan Fouant
participants (4)
-
Christopher Morrow -
David Oramas -
Mark Gauvin -
Stefan Fouant