Content translations are temporarily unavailable due to site maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience. Visit our blog to learn more.
08-09-2016 05:53 PM
I am looking at replacing an ssg140 with Palo alto product. This fw is running 35% cpu ,10000 sessions, 60 ip-sec tunnels at the moment. Would it be PA500 or something better than that.
08-10-2016 12:33 AM
Hi,
Based on those numbers the PA-500 should do the trick. I do recommend to check the products comparison page where you can verify/compare other numbers for performance, sessions, policies, objects, user-id, decryption, url-filtering, interfaces, routing and much more.
This allows you to get a more complete view of the limitations of all of the Palo Alto Networks Firewall models and will give you a much better idea of the model that will best fit your needs :
Cheers !
-Kim.
08-10-2016 12:35 AM
based solely on your listed requirements the PA-500 should do the trick, but you may want to verify some other parameters like throughput and potential growth (more tunnels, more connections, more bandwidth?)
08-10-2016 09:49 AM
Check out the PA 3000 series instead of PA500, if you search on the community. PA500 commit is very slow and it is based on the older generation hardware refresh.
Best to talk to your sales team and see if you can get a loaner for POC.
E
Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.
The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!
These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!
The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!
