Re: CARP/VRRP on monowall

"Tonix (Antonio Nati)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.security.firewalls.m0n0wall
Message-ID <[email protected]>
If it is less costly pfsense or cisco, has nothing to do with my 
request: a monowall with carp would be well accepted.

Actually, there are more reasons which make me prefer monowall to 
pfsense (i.e. not mounting a flash disk for intensive work and/or 
swapping, better shaping, impressive I/O performance), which are valid 
for all, despite of local needs.

Instead, network topology and network features are topics which are 
competely different from company to company, so you cannot make a 
general assumption.

Regards,

Tonino

Il 01/01/2011 14:34, Klaus Stock ha scritto:
> ?> We switched from monowall to pfsense only for redundancy reasons, 
> but we
>> miss speed and semplicity of monowall, and we'd love to switch back 
>> whenever possible.
>
> I suppose that a major part of the speed and simplicity of m0n0wall 
> vs. pfSense is that such "exotic" features are being left out.
>
> A fully redundant internet connection with fully transparent 
> (unnoticeable) failover also requires quite a bit of complexity on the 
> internet provider's side, which makes it so costly that very few 
> people actually consider this. And if you pay $$$ for the neccesseary 
> infrastructure on the provider's side, you might as well afford to 
> spend a bit more money for labor and hardware on your side.
>
> Unless you plan on using it only for an inner firewall. Here you might 
> get away by not using a single HA firewall (with CARP and enerything) 
> but by two separate simple firewalls. This assumes that you have 
> redundant machines both in the DMZ and the backend. So one firewall 
> betwen pirmary DMZ machine and primary backend nachiness, and another 
> one between secondary DMZ and backend machines. The failover machnism 
> which switches for primary DMZ to secondary DMZ machines may then take 
> also care of failing backend machines or inner firewalls.
>
>
> And still pfSense appears more accessible that what for example Cisco 
> has to offer ;-)
>
>
> Best regards, Klaus
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
         Inter@zioni            Interazioni di Antonio Nati
    http://www.interazioni.it      [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.