Aaron,
Re-reading my post, it appears that I stated my
thoughts wrong.
With business the way it is, if a vendor doesn't need
to implement an option, they don't and won't
spend $$ on it. F5 has not needed or has had
enough requests to interoperate with OPSEC,
so they haven't persued becoming a
partner(my opinion of course.)
If you(or any others) feel that interoperability is a
must, then tell F5. If they get enough responses,
they may persue it(as any vendor might).
As for support, any vendor who truely stands behind
their product, will be willing to make it work in most
situations. I have already had good support with F5
and in a particular problem, it was a Cisco
configuration issue. They gave me the correct
syntax and helped me test to verify the fix.
I bought an F5, because I had a need for that
product and not the interoperability. Conversely,
I needed a product that would read/accept
FW1 log information. I chose WebTrends
for the very reason that it was certified to work
with CP(not to mention, it does what I need it to
do.)
btw, what options would you like to see F5
implement that aren't there? Just curiosity.
Thanks Aaron.
Robert
(p.s. I do agree with your last paragraph, and I
wouldn't buy a product that did X, just so I
could make it do Z.)
>>> Aaron Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7/17/00 1:14:59 PM >>>
>
>If there isn't a need for a great deal of interoperability then why hasn't
>F5 gotten the certification? They aren't even listed as a partner last I
>checked. Maybe it does work great, but it indicates to me that F5 doesn't
>feel for whatever reason (technical or otherwise) that they want to
>support the Big/IP product in a Firewall-1 environment. What happens if
>it doesn't work right out of the box and you need help? Who's going to
>support the hardware/configuration?
>
>RadWare on the otherhand has a dedicated box for load balancing web
>servers (the WSD) and another series of hardware for firewalls
>(FireProof).
>
>I'm not saying it won't work. Just in my experiance don't by hardware
>with the intent of doing something with it that the vendors own marketing
>department doesn't think you should use it for. YMMV of course.
>
>--
>Aaron Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 650.237.0300 x252
>Security Engineer Vicinity Corp.
>Cell: 408-314-9874 http://www.vicinity.com
>
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Robert MacDonald wrote:
>
>>
>> Why? The need for interoperability. Currently there isn't
>> much(that I'm aware of).
>>
>> If the two never interacted(directly), then OPSEC
>> compliance is not that important.
>>
>> And just like firewalls, buying a load balancer is
>> dependent on your requirements. The 'best' is the
>> one that fits for you.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> - -
>> Robert P. MacDonald, Network Engineer
>> e-Business Infrastructure
>> G o r d o n F o o d S e r v i c e
>> Voice: +1.616.261.7987 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >>> Aaron Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7/13/00 7:02:02 PM >>>
>> >
>> >I'd point out that the Fireproof is OPSEC certified and the Big/IP is not.
>> >One has to wonder why that is... With that said, I've heard some good
>> >things about the Fireproof and I like RadWare in general (we've got a
>> >bunch of their WSD-NP's).
>> >
>> >--
>> >Aaron Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 650.237.0300 x252
>> >Security Engineer Vicinity Corp.
>> >Cell: 408-314-9874 http://www.vicinity.com
>> >
>> >On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ivan Fox wrote:
>> >
>> >> F5's Big/IP was recommended to us instead of RadWare's Fireproof.
>> >>
>> >> Any comments/pointers about these two products are appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Ivan
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
