Re: Firewalls

If they are in need of a faster data connection, and don't mind the
$500/month price tag, a T1 can be a good solution as they can also put
some data lines on it as well and defer even more of the cost
increase. Once we removed 5 lines from clients phone company, and
factored in the cost of their ISDN line, it was the same price as a
T1, and they provided a CISCO router. If they have the need for it
anyway, it's a good way to get a free router, that you manage anyway.

On Feb 15, 5:30 am, Leythos <V...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0600, Tom wrote:
I have a client who has had another vendor recommend they purchase a cisco
router/firewall for their SBS 2003 standard installation. The client uses
DSL. The other vendor feels there should also be a separate VPN
authentication server and perhaps move the Exchange to a spearate server,
all to acommodate future growth. This installation has 15 users. I am
curious to know what anyone would think about the Cisco purchase; if
Standard is safe enough (it seems to be for all my other clients on the
Standard version of SBS 2003) and if moving them to Premium would be a
reasonable alternative to the Cisco hardware purchase? If they did go the
Cisco route, I may suggest they just go to a T1 line with would probably
include the Cisco hardware. for the record, the suggestions (i.e moving
Exchange to another server) seem to moss the point of SBS in the first
place, but I don't want to get into a battle with the other people.

For a client with a DSL or T1 you could just purchase a firewall to setup
secondary authentication, and you would not need a second server.

I use WatchGuard for almost every client, it sounds like the X550e unit
would be more than enough for your client.

With the x550e they could secure their exchange server by removing content
from SMTP inbound sessions, they could also setup VPN to the firewall and
then provide access via authenticated user to the exchange server.

We have one client with SBS and a dedicated Exchange server, but, their
server has 70 active users and they have 16 Fax Modems attached to the
dedicated Exchange server. The only reason we moved Exchange to a
dedicated server was because of the load/memory and the 16 Fax lines that
come into it. We run SQL also, and between SQL and Exchange with that many
users it was just to much load.

The firewall is the proper method, but with it you won't need a secondary
authentication method - and the firewall is about $2000 currently, a heck
of a lot cheaper than their proposed solution.

--
Leythos
spam999f...@xxxxxxxxxx (remove 999 for proper email address)


.

Relevant Pages
Loading