Hi,
The pages you want are:
http://www.checkpoint.com/products/choice/platforms/platforms_matrix.htm
l
http://www.checkpoint.com/products/choice/platforms/platforms_size.html
http://www.checkpoint.com/products/choice/platforms.html
I'd say Nokia is an excellent choice for an appliance
joe smith wrote:
Sorry I wasnt able to examine all zillion states. but i dont think CP
checks all those states before releasing code to public.
lately they seem to do little QA at all on their patches.
=
To set vacation, Out-Of-Office, or away
Joe Demarest a écrit :
Folks, I have gotten to the bottom of my CP - HA flipping back and
forth problems with Solaris. I put a much larger box in place of one
of the firewalls and the problem has been better for some time now.
This leads me to believe that I need to upgrade my hardware,
P-1--(i)Pix(o)--Internet--(o)Router(i)--CP_FW--LAN_X
Both the router and the CP Firewall have public IP.
I have a P-1 with RFC-1918 address space like 192.168.0.0/24
with the leading interface IP 192.168.0.1. This P-1 will
have about 250 CMAs in there and it will manage about 500
Hi,
I'd like some clarification regarding the following situation:
Environment:
Nokia IP1260 Cluster with 2 Members (IPSO 4.0 with NGX R60 HFA04) using 3rd
Party VRRP High Availability and Cluster XL for the SyncNetwork
VRRP:
VRRP Monitored Circuits using Legacy Configuration
3rd Party
Hi,
I need to connect two clustered Checkpoint Firewalls (HA, hot standby)
to a cisco router, but _not_ with a switch between. The firewalls are
to be directly connected to two seperate ports at the Cisco router.
Does anybody happen to know how to configure the Cisco in order to
search for the
nothing is perfect :) , how does works well enough to run in production
Mark Elsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I wasnt able to examine all
zillion states. but i dont think CP checks all those states before releasing
code to public.
So works 'perfect' still stays undefined ?
M.
Some MS providers require a site to site VPN for access to any customer
devices. I think it makes good sense. True you get the SSL tunnel between CMA
and FW but the additional tunnel allows you to do things like monitoring, use
of the RFC IP space(no NAT complications from doing static on the
Hi Guru's,
Running a VPN tunnel between a R56 HFA09 cluster and a remote stand
alone R56 HFA16 management server/gateway we seem to be getting many
of the above errors in our logs on the cluster.
We seem to also be getting a lot of SSH sessions killed a short time
after connection and l'm
