[THIN] Re: Juniper
- From: "Carl Stalhood" <cstalhood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:19:50 -0600
My networking team tells me that Juniper does a better job at SSL VPN
tunnels.
However, Juniper does not have Secure Gateway functionality. If you intend
to provide access to published applications without using a SSL VPN tunnel
then you will have to stick with a CAG. Published apps through the Secure
gateway functionality of the CAG is much faster than running the published
apps across a VPN tunnel.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Chad Schneider (IT)
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:11 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Juniper
Does anyone have experience with the Juniper SSL VPN appliance?
I have an Access Gateway in for eval at this time, and some would like me to
get another comparable unit it, to make the best decision.
Juniper SSL VPN 700 was recommended.
Anyone with exprience? How does it compare to the CAG?
Chad Schneider
Systems Engineer
ThedaCare IT
920-735-7615
Other related posts:
