The SRX has more headroom for stateful scale and more features. -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brendan Mannella Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:19 AM To: OBrien, Will; sth...@nethelp.no Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX Firewall Capabilities
Nice, and if I decided I want stateful firewalling and IPS, I see I can use the DPC card... Are there any pros/cons to this vs just buying a separate SRX? -----Original Message----- From: OBrien, Will [mailto:obri...@missouri.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:04 PM To: sth...@nethelp.no Cc: Brendan Mannella; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX Firewall Capabilities Yup. That is correct. Border filters are no problem without the ms-dpc. Sent from my iPad On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:56 PM, "sth...@nethelp.no" <sth...@nethelp.no> wrote: >> Just wondering what the firewalling capabilities are with the MX series vs >> the SRX. We just would like to have basic firewall (block all incoming >> ports, allow specifcs). Would we need the MS-DPC to achieve this? The new >> router will be are trio cards. > > As long as you don't need *state* tracking but simply basic filtering > on ports, IP addresses etc your standard MX cards work just fine - no > need for MS-DPC. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
