<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/MU" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Checkpoint offers Firewall just for virtualized environments</title>
	<link>http://blogs.virtualizationadmin.com/davis/2008/08/24/checkpoint-offers-firewall-just-for-virtualized-environments/</link>
	<description>Written by David Davis, VCP, the intention of this blog is to share with readers the most relevant and important information, news, tips and tweaks for all aspects of Virtualization, focusing on Microsoft Hyper-V. VMware, and Citrix. We will discuss topics such as high availability, migration, performance, recovery, product add-ons, and more. We will also cover practical information to help with administration and management of your virtualization infrastructure.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Larry L.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.virtualizationadmin.com/davis/2008/08/24/checkpoint-offers-firewall-just-for-virtualized-environments/#comment-15297</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.virtualizationadmin.com/davis/2008/08/24/checkpoint-offers-firewall-just-for-virtualized-environments/#comment-15297</guid>
					<description>David, I have esx 4 completely operational, and my question is: What do you think about have the checkpoint virtual firewall directly exposed to an internet connection? I have two NIC cards on my ESX Server and I would prefer that the Checkpoint have a virtual nic directly connected to one nic card that is directly connected to my internet access.

The other nic card would represent the inside of my network design.

My fear is that the VMWare kernel could be exposed to hackers, etc. 

I want to put in a two layer firewall design with a pix 5505 on the inside of my network as opposed the outside - primarily because cisco wants another 500 bills for the dmz IOS on the 5505.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, I have esx 4 completely operational, and my question is: What do you think about have the checkpoint virtual firewall directly exposed to an internet connection? I have two NIC cards on my ESX Server and I would prefer that the Checkpoint have a virtual nic directly connected to one nic card that is directly connected to my internet access.</p>
<p>The other nic card would represent the inside of my network design.</p>
<p>My fear is that the VMWare kernel could be exposed to hackers, etc. </p>
<p>I want to put in a two layer firewall design with a pix 5505 on the inside of my network as opposed the outside - primarily because cisco wants another 500 bills for the dmz IOS on the 5505.</p>
<p>Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: riverbed wan optimization</title>
		<link>http://blogs.virtualizationadmin.com/davis/2008/08/24/checkpoint-offers-firewall-just-for-virtualized-environments/#comment-677</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.virtualizationadmin.com/davis/2008/08/24/checkpoint-offers-firewall-just-for-virtualized-environments/#comment-677</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;riverbed wan optimization&lt;/strong&gt;

It’ s very important to not buy or install any new network system before identifying existing delays.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>riverbed wan optimization</strong></p>
<p>It’ s very important to not buy or install any new network system before identifying existing delays.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
