Re: Palo Alto

[David Scott <dwscott () FHU EDU>]

We've had a PA 2050 for about a year running in stand-alone. We're on the
4.x code and I've had no problems with stability. I currently have a bug
we're working through with logging some specific traffic. However, the
support guys at PA have been top notch with this, and any time I've needed
them.

I do know that a 4.0.6 release this week was recalled because of issues
affecting some customers' NAT rules.

David Scott
Freed-Hardeman Univeristy

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:29 AM, JR Ramirez <jrramirez30 () gmail com> wrote:

> At my former employer we implemented PA-4060 in stand-alone mode after
> problems attempting to enable active-active on the 4.x code.  I highly
> suggest staying with the 3.1.x code.
>
> We have had issues with the box rebooting itself since we implemented it
> early this year.  We like the web content filtering functionality, however
> we were not pleased with the initial instability.  Before I left the plan
> was to replace the Checkpoint implementation with PA to enable next
> generation firewall capabilities and address Web 2.0 visibility.
>
> So to answer your question, I still like PA but make sure your are running
> a stable version of code.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Kellogg, Brian D. <bkellogg () sbu edu>wrote:
>
> > Looking for real world experiences on the stability and support services
> > of the Palo Alto Firewalls if anyone is willing to share.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Thanks,****
> >
> > Brian****