Get a non-server type firewall (Windows ISA, Watchguard, etc). Cisco is not
overkill. I'm assuming you don't have redundant internet connections, so you
won't need redundant firewalls and other infrastructure. A Cisco PIX506E is
a great firewall. Here's some quick specs-
100Mbps bi-direction throughput firewall
25,000 connections
free VPN client
2 VLANs for DMZ's
Cost is $1495 (list pricing) which is pretty cheap (compared to server
hardware, OS licensing, and ISA licensing). Maint is about $100 a year,
which you will want to get so you can get help with configurations and
update the code. The great thing about Cisco is their support. You can not
know anything about a firewall, call them up and they will walk you through
configuring the entire thing. Let's see Microsoft do that! Mapping outside
to inside addresses is call NAT, Static NAT, and if your doing just ports,
it can be called Port Translation. They basically mean the same thing,
there's just variances between them.
">>JZ<<" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> We will now host our own public web site and FTP site to our clients and
> needed advice or experiences of others on a Firewall / Router hardware.
All
> Windows 2003 servers.
>
> Someone I know said Cisco (maybe overkill), and someone else said DLink as
> low end.
>
> We are a small company of 30 users - may get to 100 at most in three
years -
> not big by any means.
>
> Our goal is to get a device that will support our users, easily open and
map
> our static ips from outside with internal servers. (BTW, What feature is
> this called?)
> Lastly, we hope for a cost effective solution.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
