RE: [FW1] Using Cache appliances to seperate HTTP flow of content from FW-1

[Darrin Johansen <Darrin.Johansen@FW1-NOSPAMarup.com>]

Title: RE: [FW1] Using Cache appliances to seperate HTTP flow of content from FW-1

We use Cacheflow, and like the email below it is extremely good. We allow anybody internally to browse.

A new version of the OS should be out in March and this will allow capturing of NT user names (we have our cacheflow inside the firewall and acting as our users proxy in their browser). It also integrates well with Websense.

We will be buying more. Email if you would like more details
Cheers, dj
-----Original Message-----
From: BLATZHEIM Phillip [mailto:Phillip.BLATZHEIM@atofina.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 3:06 PM
To: Firewall-1 Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [FW1] Using Cache appliances to seperate HTTP flow of
content from FW-1

Conrad,

At my previos job,  we had a CacheFlow Appliance parrellel with the
firewall.  The appliance was in transparent mode, and dual homed.

This device did everything the liturature and sales staff promised.  The
support was exceptional.

The reporting features were good, and the administration was well
documented.

Overall I would put a Cacheflow box back in my network, if our policy
allowed "free" browsing.  Currenly only select individuals are allow so the
justification is not there for me.

Thanks,

Phillip

---------------------------------------------------------
Phillilp Blatzheim
ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc.
Information Technology -- Telecom
15710 JFK Blvd.
Houston, TX 77032

phillip.blatzheim@atofina.com
Phone: 
Fax:           
---------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Conrad Chircop [mailto:conrad.chircop@airmalta.com.mt]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:21 AM
To: Firewall-1 Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: [FW1] Using Cache appliances to seperate HTTP flow of content
from FW-1

We are considering to seperate  HTTP content by using a cache server
solution in parallel to
FW-1 with a proprietary OS such as CacheFlow - thus we would be decreasing
the traffic through it.

Has anybody tried out a similar solution & if yes, what is your opinion of
it ?

Thanks in advance

Best Regards

Conrad Chircop

============================================================================
====
     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
               http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
============================================================================
====

================================================================================
     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
               http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================