Agreed... I also like Fortinet devices, and pfSense appliances/installations.
*ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market…* On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Phil Brutsche <[email protected]> wrote: > If they are already used to a SonicWALL in their environment it might be > best to stick with one of those. > > > > The feature set is a known quantity, the VPN client will be (for IPsec) or > should be (for SSL VPN) the same, etc. > > > > The SSL VPN client is Mac-compatible. > > > > -- > > Phil Brutsche > > [email protected] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:58 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] Firewall upgrade > > > > Hi all, > > I have a client that has a Sonicwall tz 170 or 190 and the ssl appliance > 200 I believe, either way both are end of life , and no support on them, > so we are looking at a replacement , here's the environment; > > 2 site to site tunnels (one to a draytek, other to a cisco ) small office > each 5 users > Dual wan required & VPN obviously, > > HQ; > VMWARE essential host (guest 2008ts with Citrix Fundamentals) > 1 OSX server , profile manager (10 macs) > 1 2003r2 DC > 1 2003 member with SQL > 2 hyper v host running 2012 (Guest on host 1 exchange 2013. Guests on > host 2008r2 DC, 2012 file server, 2012 RDS in Eval mode not sure if they > want to convert from Citrix Fundamentals yet) > > 50 local users, most of which remote in via citrix, however, the designers > need to VPN in on their MACs in order to access /edit files with OSX . > > Given all the capabilities /options with 2012 VPN , remote web access, > direct access etc, > does it make more sense to still use the firewall to handle all these > tasks, or should I be looking at server 2012 to handle these connections > ? > > > Thanks for your imput > >
