Title: Message
Hi All,
Wanted to find out if this would work:
 
I'll start with describing the design as a 2 tiered redundant firewall design, the first tier being 2 redundant PFsense firewalls , and the second being 2 ISAServer redundant firewalls.  I need to be able to have a single VIP address on the internal interface of the PFsense machines, and several public VIP's on each WAN.  Each of these VIPs needs to map to external VIP addresses on the ISA firewalls (which incidentally are actually private addresses), so that if someone were to hit one of those virtual IP addresses on one of the PFSense machines, their connection would get redirected to the external VIP on the corresponding port of the ISA machines.  If one PFSense dies, the other nees to be able to take the responsibilities of the first for any incoming ISP connection.  If an ISP dies, each firewall needs to be able to re-route traffic to the appropriate ISP.
 
                      ISA1            pfsense1        isp1
Internal net    VIP   VIPs   VIP       VIPs                        Intarweb
                      ISA2            pfsense2        isp2
 
Does that at all make sense?  Would this be a reasonable configuration for PFSense?  Assuming all is possible on the ISAServer front, can I expect PFSense to allow me to map a set of public VIPs to internal VIPs?  Can I expect redundant PFSense (as in carp-enabled and all that) be able to also handle load-balancing and failover of two ISP's as well as their own redunancy?
 
Here's why I'm asking: I need the ISA tier for SSL proxying, but I also need ISP load balancing and failover (which ISA doesn't have).  Both ISA and PFSense provide a fully redundant architecture and can load balance.  When each PFsense, and ISAServer are clustered, each can keep a replicated state table of current sessions, and if one fails the other can provide service that the first supported before the failure.  If PFSense could do SSL proxying with support for wildcard certificates I'd just it, but unfortunately as far as I know it isn't supported (yet).  Hopefully this question wasn't too confusing, sorry if it was but regardless, thank you in advance for your feed-back!

Reply via email to