Surely both vendors have gear in many of the Tier1 carriers whether it be
for layered security or dual vendor approach. When it comes down to
deciding between the two you need to consider the deployment models and
techniques in use. These two vendors strong points are in two separate
areas. Arbor Peakflow is a very good traffic analysis tool which leverages
netflow from your existing routers for probes providing good l3-l4
volumetric flood detection. Once a pps/bw anomaly is detected you can
decide whether to reroute traffic into a scrubbing device (TMS/Radware,
etc). Arbor common deployment is OOP netflow collection with redirection to
scrubbing center. On the other hand Radware is a full packet inspection
and mitigation (Layers 3-7) appliance. Radware is a transparent device
with it's most common deployments inline, scrubbing center and out of path
TAP modes.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Beavis" <pfu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:57 PM
To: "Tempest" <tempestter...@gmail.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Radware vs Arbor
For a DDoS solution; my experience leans on arbor's peakflow and their
partnership with other upstream carrier's (Level3, Peer1, etc.) which
makes
sense since most of the attacks are distributed having recon work done by
an organization like arbor makes you only worry about the attack types
that
come into your network and not much the top part complexities of it.
I am in no relationship with arbor or any of it's employees. this is
solely
based on my knowledge of the product.
regards,
-Beavis
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Tempest <tempestter...@gmail.com> wrote:
Doing a bunch of research, and I can't find a meaningful comparison of
these two products. Work for a carrier, and I am looking at implementing
a
DDoS mitigation service that we can sell to our customers. Radware is
cheaper, but I am seeing a lot of noise in various forums that makes me
question their viability for what we need. Arbor has most of the market,
and I assume there is good reason for it. Both companies seem to be very
deceptive about how they compare to the other. Anyone out there with
good
hands on experience that can compare? Not interested in input from
either
company, we get plenty of that already. Good experience, or links to
good
write ups would be excellent...
Davis B.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Disclaimer:
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/