Re: Third party certifications for LB

Hi Ken,
  I agree with you. As of now, the individual modules like application
firewall, protocol anomaly detection engines that are part of ADCs should be
independently certified until some third party vendor comes up with a
complete test suite tailored for ADCs.

These certifications are must keeping in mind the rules set by Jericho
forum<http://www.theopengroup.org/jericho/index.htm>.
They believe in  the
De-perimeterisation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-perimeterisation>of
network security and its moving closer to the servers. In coming days,
ADCs hold prominent rule to the security of server applications as they
understand application better than edge network security devices.

Thanks,
-Ravi Chunduru

2009/3/25 Kenneth Salchow <[email protected]>

>  Ravi,
>
>
>
> I think you are spot on, however, I also think this is a pretty daunting
> task.  As you suggest, the number of features/functions being added into the
> ADC realm is becoming pretty significant.  There are some pretty significant
> ‘scope’ issues here: no one agrees on which features should be or are
> incorporated into ADC.
>
>
>
> Personally, I would think that relying on the same certifications as the
> originating product/feature set is the first place to start.  If an ADC
> incorporates a web-application firewall or a network-layer firewall, then
> that component should probably continue to participate in the same
> certification programs.  The difficulty, of course, is that once all these
> features are put together, you can start doing new and interesting things
> that simply couldn’t be done before.  It’s when these once disparate
> features start to intermingle that we start to have a really big problem—as
> there won’t be any set standards at all.
>
>
>
> An interesting discussion though—I guess it boils down to this: do we need
> to test/certify the entire suite of functionality/features or should we
> test/certify agreed upon functionality separately?
>
>
>
> *KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr.*  *|*  Manager, Technical Marketing
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Ravi Kumar
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:50 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [load balancing] Third party certifications for LB
>
>
>
> With LBs evolving into ADCs, I believe thrid party certifications are
> needed.
>
> I have written in more detail about the need for certification.
>
> http://netlb.blogspot.com/2009/03/need-for-third-party-certification.html
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ravi Chunduru
>
>
>
> On 3/23/09, *Ravi Kumar* <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi List,
>    Are there any third party certifications for the load balancers?
>
> I came across Tolly group which conducts tests when the vendor requests
> them.
> That too, Tolly group just concentrates on a given set of tests and will
> not cover entire box and features wide.
> And there is Gartner group classifying the lbs into magic quadrants based
> on the feature set but does not depend on the test results.
>
> The LB market lacks a genuine third party certification like NSS for
> Intrusion prevention systems.
>
> The third party certifications will help the customers to choose the best
> LB based on the performance and test results rather than carried away with
> the feature rich and marketing terminology.
>
> Let me know if you come across such certifications or call up the need with
> your reason for the certification of LB devices.
>
> Thanks,
> -Ravi Chunduru
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
>
>

_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki