[THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
- From: "Joe Shonk" <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:04:55 -0700
I disagree with the "not for enterprise" statement. Even enterprise
customers are ditching conventional ipsec appliances in favor of an easier
to manage SSL VPN solution.
Joe
On 2/23/06, Durf <stygmata@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From my point of view, it's about the SMB market. There are plenty of SMB
> businesses with a small Citrix deployment who have no VPN solution, or some
> old and difficult to administer, shared-secret IPSec VPN they got back with
> their Cisco 1700 in '96.
>
> You go and tell a medical, legal, or accounting practice that they can
> have a secure, no-config VPN from anywhere, and they can use either
> Citrix/Terminal Services or VPN to their laptop / desktop / internet cafe
> system, and they're all over it like white on rice.
>
> That's what the hotness about this device is all about currently -- SMB,
> not the enterprise.
>
> -- Durf
>
> On 2/23/06, Jeff Pitsch < jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Why spend the money on a CSG replacement? Most mid to large companies
> > already have VPN solutions in place and don't want a second VPN solution as
> > well. Most companies vpn's are controlled by the network group, not the
> > windows group. citrix has no in to the network group and that's much harder
> > to get.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > On 2/23/06, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > >
> > > How do you figure? It's a perfect match for those companies using
> > > Presentation Server. The fact that it can act as a drop in replacement
> > > for
> > > their existing CSG is a big selling point. From there, the customer can
> > > start leveraging the additional benefits of the box (VPN, End Point
> > > Checking, AAC features, etc). Many of our customers are telling us that
> > > end-point checking and security is now a requirement, not an option. CSG
> > > no
> > > long fits that bill. I like CSG. It still has its place, but the market
> > > is
> > > evolving.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> > > Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:56 PM
> > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > True but you don't have to pay extra for connection licenses.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > People are right though, CAG offers so much mor than CSG. I think
> > > it's worth the price. It's just that those that do Presentation Server
> > > aren't typically the people that you would seel CAG too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/23/06, *Steve Greenberg* < steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not to mention that while everyone says CSG is "free" I guarantee you
> > > that most users run it on a server that costs more than $2495 including
> > > the
> > > OS!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Greenberg
> > >
> > > Thin Client Computing
> > >
> > > 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
> > >
> > > Scottsdale, AZ 85262
> > >
> > > (602) 432-8649
> > >
> > > www.thinclient.net
> > >
> > > steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> > > Behalf Of *Joe Shonk
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:22 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To Citrix's defence tho... They do add alot of value and it keeps
> > > getting better. If you take a look at what Citrix is doing (and going to
> > > do) with the CAG line, it's easy to understand why they want to drop CSG.
> > > So far the CAG is a hot item and has generated a lot of interest from
> > > customers.
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > On 2/23/06, *Matthew Shrewsbury* < MShrewsbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > You got it…it's all about the money. The biggest problem with Citrix
> > > is the pricing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Matthew Shrewsbury, * MCSE+Internet MCSE 2000 CCA Server+
> > >
> > > Senior Network Administrator
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> > > Behalf Of *Joe Shonk
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:11 AM
> > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > *Subject:* [THIN ] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Even Extranet went the way of the Dodo... I would expect to hear an
> > > annoucement come iforum. Remember Citrix's main goal is to be a billion
> > > dollar company. Giving CSG away doesn't generate revenues and takes away
> > > from CAG sales.
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > On 2/23/06, *Edward VanDewars* < evandewars@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > But you also have to spend an additional $75+ dollars per concurrent
> > > user for licensing - above and beyond what you have already spent on
> > > normal
> > > Citrix licenses (not to mention the cost of the device - for which you
> > > could
> > > put in 2-3 CSG servers). That's the deal breaker for us (since we really
> > > don't need the SSL VPN, just a secure connection back to the Citrix Farm)
> > > and no amount of up-front CSG configuration costs could ever outweigh
> > > that.
> > >
> > > I understand that it won't be going anywhere right now, but there is a
> > > certain level of discomfort in knowing that part of our infrastructure
> > > will
> > > eventually be phased out - especially if we don't know exactly when that
> > > will happen.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/22/06, *Jeremy Saunders* < jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeff is right. They will not phase out for some time as CSG has its
> > > place
> > > with every Presentation Server deployment. What they are trying to do
> > > is
> > > justify CAG over CSG as replacement by showing the dollars involved in
> > >
> > > purchasing and setting them up.
> > >
> > > CSG
> > > -Need hardware.
> > > -Need time to build it.
> > > -Need to harden the good old Windows OS.
> > > -Need a certificate
> > > -Etc, etc, etc
> > >
> > > CAG
> > > -Need to configure it.
> > > -Need a certificate.
> > >
> > > So they are trying to say that CAG is cost effective.
> > >
> > > Then of course you can do some really cool stuff with policies, and
> > > CAG can
> > > also replace your existing remote VPN solution. So it doesn't just
> > > replace
> > > CSG...it is so much more. It can replace your cludgy Cisco or
> > > Checkpoint
> > > VPN solution and is so much more user friendly for the end users.
> > >
> > > You can also "partner" the CAGs for redundancy. Doing this with CSG is
> > > not
> > > a technically sound solution
> > >
> > > And yes...I also believe that CAG will be rolled up into the NetScaler
> > > hardware down the track. The activation codes will turn on the
> > > different
> > > functions of the NetScaler, with CAG being one of them.
> > >
> > > It's all very cool stuff, but CSG is an awesome product for its price
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Jeremy Saunders
> > > Senior Technical Specialist
> > >
> > > Integrated Technology Services &
> > > Cerulean
> > > IBM Australia
> > > Level 2, 1060 Hay Street
> > > West Perth WA 6005
> > >
> > > Visit us at
> > > http://www.ibm.com/services/au/its
> > >
> > > P: +61 8 9261 8412 F: +61 8 9261 8486
> > > M: TBA E-mail:
> > > jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jeff Pitsch"
> > > < jepitsch@xxxxxxx
> > >
> > > om> To
> > > Sent by: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > thin-bounce@freel
> > > cc
> > > ists.org
> > >
> > > Subject
> > > [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway
> > > status ?
> > > 23/02/2006 10:36
> > > AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Please respond to
> > > thin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Everyone, do not overreact.
> > >
> > > let's get serious here for a minute. CSG has only been truly updated
> > > once
> > > over the past few years. Do not overreact to this news, CSG is still
> > > a
> > > great FREE product.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/22/06, Greg Reese <gareese@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > that sucks. the CAG is their little appliance device right? It
> > > figures
> > > that as soon as I got something running right, it would get
> > > tanked. My
> > > next hurdle is smartcards. Lets hope they leave that one alone.
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/23/06, Rob Slayden < rslayden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > > Had a Citrix product presentation at work today and the indication
> > > was
> > > that the new Citrix Access Gateway product is supplanting CSG. I
> > > specifically asked if this was a CSG replacement and was told that
> > > it
> > > was. Sorry Greg!!
> > >
> > > rob
> > >
> > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > On
> > > Behalf Of Greg Reese
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:29 PM
> > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope now. I just got it running nice and smooth.
> > >
> > > On 2/23/06, M < mathras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > > Can anyone confirm if development of Secure Gateway is to cease ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ************************************************
> > > For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> > > set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> > > //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> > > ************************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --------------
> Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
> But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Other related posts:
