On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:06:42 -0400, "Paul Melson" wrote:
> Sounds like a big firewall. I'm curious, though, as to why load-balancing
> is a requirement. My experience has been that an appropriately-sized
> single
> firewall as part of a fail-over pair is more reliable and performs better
> than a comparable load-balanced firewall.

I'd say that's really implementation specific. I can see why this would be the case, but that really depends on the actual solution.

> The only other firewall vendor I can think of that does (or at least
> claims
> to do) load-balancing is Symantec Enterprise Firewall. However, you may
> also want to look at third-party load-balancing solutions like Radware
> FireProof or Foundry ServerIron.

StoneSoft StoneGate has really neat clustering with dynamic re-distribution of load etc. They also used to do deliver load balancing solutions for Checkpoint for a long time.

-- Jan

firewall-wizards mailing list