Ignoring the lack of Xen dom0 support in FreeBSD for a moment, of course.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, pfsense sense <[email protected]> wrote: > "multiple concurrent PFSense instances" > > no, you have also missed my point... i'm not interested in vistualizing > "pfsense" > my idea was to "provide" VT options, a dom0, "along side" pfsense... as it > is available in Linux. > > > | OS --> service (file) > cloud --> pfsense --> VT --> | OS --> service (mail) > | OS --> service (database) > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Greg Hennessy <[email protected]>wrote: > >> As the others have said, it depends on what you mean by 'integrate' >> >> Ignoring the lack of Xen dom0 support in FreeBSD for a moment. >> Utilising VT technology to deliver physical as well as logical isolation >> of multiple concurrent PFSense instances in a manner analagous to >> >> Fortinet VDOM : http://kc.forticare.com/default.asp?id=2065&Lang=1&SID= >> >> or >> >> Juniper VSYS : >> http://www.juniper.net/solutions/literature/white_papers/200103.pdf >> >> Does have a certain attraction from a managed service perspective. >> >> Hosting applications within domUs running on PFSense. A complete waste of >> time. >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* pfsense sense [[email protected]] >> *Sent:* 28 January 2009 00:42 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [pfSense-discussion] xen aware pfsense. >> >> has anyone considered the possibility of intergrating xen with pfsense ? >> >> i might be loosing my mind but wouldn't it be nice to have a pfsense >> running on harware and a vistualization environemnt that allow us to install >> our OS's of choice perfectly protected behind pfsense ? >> >> does anything else think it's a good idea ? >> > >
