That’s a very good remark :) As I mentioned previously, we’re presently fully standardised on their appliances (physical so far) and have no particular complaints about it so we see no reason why we should not continue this way. In our opinion, standardisation has quite a lot of value.
Nonetheless, if we find major flaws with their virtual appliances we will re-evaluate this stance. Antoine On 23/04/15 09:05, "Jeroen Massar" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2015-04-23 08:50, Antoine Benkemoun-Andre wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> We are in the process of evaluating “cloud" firewall solutions such as >> FortiVM. The promise of these virtual appliances looks interesting and >>it >> seems like a great fit given our current infrastructure is based off of >> Fortigate physical appliances. >> >> Nonetheless, I can’t help but think that given the virtual appliance >> nature of these solutions there could be a number of limitations to it. > >Instead of naming a specific solution, why not specify your requirements? > >Greets, > Jeroen > > > >_______________________________________________ >swinog mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
