cisco4ng wrote:
"In your previous emails you said that your customer is now at r55 hfa20
and the mssp will migrate this cma to r65 hfa01. this means you won't
have to do the migration yourself."
MSSP will do the migration from R55 hfa20 to R65 hfa01 BUT I have to
do a proof of concept t
"In your previous emails you said that your customer is now at r55 hfa20
and the mssp will migrate this cma to r65 hfa01. this means you won't
have to do the migration yourself."
MSSP will do the migration from R55 hfa20 to R65 hfa01 BUT I have to
do a proof of concept that it will work.
cisco4ng wrote:
currently:
customer: CMA NG-AI R55 w/ hfa-20
MSSP: CMA NGx R65 with NO HFA
in about 2 weeks, MSSP will upgrade their P-1 to HFA_01.
the customer CMA will be migrate to NGx R65 with HFA_01 from R55.
This is what I will be dealing with:
customer: CMA NG-AI R55 w/ h
currently:
customer: CMA NG-AI R55 w/ hfa-20
MSSP: CMA NGx R65 with NO HFA
in about 2 weeks, MSSP will upgrade their P-1 to HFA_01.
the customer CMA will be migrate to NGx R65 with HFA_01 from R55.
This is what I will be dealing with:
customer: CMA NG-AI R55 w/
cisco4ng wrote:
This is what I have to deal with:
Source: CMA with R55 w/ HFA_20
Destination: CMA with R65 w/ HFA_01,
David DeSimone stated perfectly. By the time I am ready to do
a CMA migration from R55 to R65, the MSSP is already running R65
HFA_01. Therefore, I have to test the CMA mig
This is what I have to deal with:
Source: CMA with R55 w/ HFA_20
Destination: CMA with R65 w/ HFA_01,
David DeSimone stated perfectly. By the time I am ready to do
a CMA migration from R55 to R65, the MSSP is already running R65
HFA_01. Therefore, I have to test the CMA migration from R55 wi
I believe the last two posts, from Melipa and DannTro, were regarding issues
with the public release.
Ray
> All I saw in the post was a remark that HFA-01 as earlier provided to
> CSP's was not alright. No one reported issues with the normal HFA-01 as
> far as I can read in that posting.
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That was not even close to what I said. C said he expected the target
> would be on R65 + HFA-01 by the time they needed to migrate. So I
> fail to see why someone would test a migration from R55 to R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David DeSimone wrote:
> Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It sounds to me you are testing migrations that will not occur for
>> real. So why should you bother to test that scenario?
>
> If you are saying that there's no way anyone coul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It sounds to me you are testing migrations that will not occur for
> real. So why should you bother to test that scenario?
If you are saying that there's no way anyone could still be running R55
in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
cisco4ng wrote:
> There is a problem to this. I don't manage the CMA. The R55 CMA
> is currently residing on a P-1 system at a Managed Security
> Service Provider. By the time we are going to migrate from R55 to
> R65, the MSSP will probably be at
There is a problem to this. I don't manage the CMA. The R55 CMA
is currently residing on a P-1 system at a Managed Security
Service Provider. By the time we are going to migrate from R55 to
R65, the MSSP will probably be at R65 with HFA_01. As a security
consultant for this customer, it is my
cisco4ng wrote:
I am referring to the fact that when I migrate a cma from R55 to R65 with
NO HFA, everything works. When I migrate a cma from R55 to R65
with HFA_01, it does NOT work. It seems to me that HFA_01 has
issues. I am just one of those many victims.
maybe you should try to i
I am referring to the fact that when I migrate a cma from R55 to R65 with
NO HFA, everything works. When I migrate a cma from R55 to R65
with HFA_01, it does NOT work. It seems to me that HFA_01 has
issues. I am just one of those many victims.
Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
cisco4ng wrote:
> And you're suprised by it? I've known about these things since I
> first learned about it in Secureplatform NG Feature Pack 3.
And WHAT are you referring to? There are a number of losely related
remarks in that posting.
Hugo.
-
And you're suprised by it? I've known about these things since I
first learned about it in Secureplatform NG Feature Pack 3.
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is anyone having issues with R65 HFA01?
There are some posts at
http://www.cpug.org/forums/versions-firewall-1-vpn-1/5923-r65-hfa01-rel
Intellisync
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ray
Gesendet: 20.10.2007 15:34:08
An: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1
Betreff: [FW-1] R65 HFA01 problems?
Is anyone having issues with R65 HFA01?
There are some posts at
http://www.cpug.org/forums/versions-firewall-1-vpn-1/5923-r65
Is anyone having issues with R65 HFA01?
There are some posts at
http://www.cpug.org/forums/versions-firewall-1-vpn-1/5923-r65-hfa01-released.html
about it. It's been a long time since I've read about so many issues in such a
short of period of time after the public release of an HFA.
Thanks,
18 matches
Mail list logo
