Re: 3Com Superstack 3 or Sonicwall PRO 300

From:
Date: 10/31/02


Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 03:34:44 GMT

The 300 would work for about a week, then stop passing traffic, requiring a
power cycle. I was told by a top tier tech that their products have
limitations working in standard addressing mode, and that I should run my
network in NAT. Standard mode also breaks Sonicwalls IKE implementation,
unless you jump through more hoops. (all undocumented, and the first tier
techs know zilch about it) Since any product that I reccomend has to work
how you want, not how they want you to use it I still cannot reccomend
Sonicwalls. However I am glad that they work for you, and the feature set
was nice. I just think they are trying to do too much too fast.

"KooZee" <koozee@cyberdude.com> wrote in message
news:3dc09ac3_4@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> FYI - 3Com OEM's the SonicWALL firmware for their boxes. Then again, so
did
> webramp, and some of the Netgears today underlying design is SonicWALL's.
I
> guess 280,000 boxes worldwide can't be wrong!
>
> Maybe the user was unstable and not the box? We have 33 SonicWall's with
> their global management system. Like any other piece of hardware, nothing
> is 100%.
>
> We also have PIX's, BorderWare, Watchguard's and Cyberguard. All of them
> have their merits. Look at the recurring costs - yearly support, firmware
> updates, hardware replacement. Once you get the boxes running, you pretty
> well leave them alone.
>
> "W. B." <civikminded@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:TlUv9.7473$YJ1.6564025@ruti.visi.com...
> > I did have stability problems with my Sonicwall, I still have a Tele3
in
> my
> > orgnazation that crashes bi-weekly.
> >
> > Without know the specifics of your organization, and what applications
you
> > have, I would be hesitent to say "Here, this one" I can only relate my
own
> > personal experience. Honestly, I know nothing about the Superstack.
For
> > all I know it is the best firewall made, and also makes great coffee. I
> > have had positive experiences with: Watchguards, Netscreens, and
(limited
> > experience) PIX's (although I have issues with Cisco's licencing, the
> > hardware itself seems good.) All would have a product that would meet
> your
> > needs. Currently, at the central office I am using a Netscreen-50 with
> > InsideOut Firewall reporter by www.stonylakesolutions.com. I guess I
> > couldn't me more content with the setup.
> >
> >
> > "Keith Whyte" <chemo@buca.org> wrote in message
> > news:apou6u$fuj$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Sorry, I should have left that VPN info out, 200 licenses will be more
> > than
> > > enough. Though I will have a large number of remote users.
> > >
> > > The criteria is that it needs to be easy to set up and stable. That
> > worries
> > > me that you say that you had problems, and from what I can see their
> > support
> > > isn't up to much either.
> > >
> > > It should have a DMZ port (for email/web server) and have good
> reporting.
> > I
> > > don't really need web filtering or anti-virus features.
> > >
> > > I ended up with these two after deciding that I need a hardware as
> opposed
> > > to software solution and these two came out best in a labs test in
PCPro
> > and
> > > I thought they fulfilled my need. Also they were the best I could get
> > within
> > > my allocated budget. Not very scientific I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > "W. B." <civikminded@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:GySv9.7458$YJ1.6550534@ruti.visi.com...
> > > > My advice is dont use how many VPN clients you get as the basis of
> your
> > > > decision. Both of these products use the IRE SafeNet-PK VPN
Client.
> > The
> > > > software is licenced from a seperate company, and costs them almost
> > > nothing
> > > > to provide, but their marketing departments know that people like
the
> > word
> > > > 'unlimited'.
> > > >
> > > > I had a pro 300 for a while. I found it to be easy to use, but
rather
> > > > unstable.
> > > >
> > > > What criteria do you have, and how did you end up with these two?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>