Arbor DDoS Reviews

We are an internet service provider. We are using Arbor in our networks and it mitigates all attacks on our network. We are using BGP for traffic diversion.

When we implement Arbor in an organization it is protected against DDoS attacks. We also protect our services, our customers and their networks with it. We need Arbor or a similar solution in our organization.

It's very flexible and we can easily deploy it to our network. It's very user-friendly. We can do everything via the web interface and troubleshoot easily from the CLI. It's not complicated. I like the features.

Sometimes the PPM module gives you an error. They improved it, they deployed a patch, and fixed it. Generally, if it gives you an error, you need to power it off and back on again.

It's more stable than its competitors. We haven't had any stability issues with it.

It's scalable.

Technical support is pretty good. Sometimes first-level engineers take too much time, but when they escalate to the engineers they solve our problems. So the first level of support, I am not sure about them, but the other levels are good.

They respond to our tickets.

We used Cisco Guard but Cisco no longer sells that solution. It was a very complex solution and our customer satisfaction was very low. We searched for a new solution and we liked Arbor.

It is easy to deploy. You can easily configure the interface, connect your network, and easily do the BGP configuration from the menu.

If you're deploying the TMS product, it takes about one hour for the physical deployment and configuration requirements. The Collector is easily done in TMS. Their inline solution, APS devices, is also easily done. It takes about a half an hour for an APS device.

We don't have a specific deployment strategy. For deployment, the minimum staff required is one security guy and one network guy.

We generally get support from Arbor engineers while we deploy.

We have gained from this product, and our customers are also satisfied with this solution. It helps with our profit. It's a good investment.

Arbor's products are very expensive. Their competitors are cheap when compared with Arbor. Now we are using Arbor, but in the future, if the price remains expensive, we might PoC the competitors. If we have the budget, we want to use Arbor, but in the future, if we have budget problems we may try other products.

I would recommend Arbor's solution. I like it.

In terms of increasing the usage of Arbor, when we expand our networks, we open new sites or data centers, we always use Arbor. In the future, if expand out, we will use it again.

I rate it a nine out of ten because I have been using it for about eight years and it's very user-friendly, troubleshooting is good, and the reporting side is also good. It's easy to deploy and our customer feedback has been good. It's just that the pricing is very expensive, so I give it a nine.

We are using Arbor as a DDoS protection infrastructure. It protects our both our company's infrastructure and also our customers' infrastructure. We are not using it to protect one website, we are protecting a lot of websites and a lot of customers' infrastructures including their websites, their web services, etc.

It protects our infrastructure. We are in a particular geography so we face a lot of cyber attacks, especially DDoS attacks. It's very beneficial for our infrastructure. It's a vital component for every provider network.

We are using it mainly for DDoS protection. Reporting functions provide good visibility. Also, API's helps us to improve our service. We are also using it by serving cloud signaling service to our customers for their on-premise APS devices.

Learning period for managed objects are too short; better to have auto-profiling based on learning.

As long as you don't touch it, it's very stable. But if you try to configure new features or some new deployment, sometimes that can be a problem. A few weeks ago we had an appliance that went down. 

It's very scalable. It has a central management platform that manages all appliances, so if you have a few sites, you can scale it to other sites with new devices and you can manage them from the central management platform.

Arbor has an engineer in our country and we try to solve our cases or our problems or our new feature configurations with him. Also we are able to do that by contacting tech directly. The guys in our country help us contact the tech team. They also have another contact in the tech team so they can speed up the resolution of our cases by communicating with him.

When issues arise, they're helpful, they're knowledgeable and responsive.

The last ticket we submitted was when one of our appliances went down while we were configuring it one night. They solved it within four or five hours after we opened the case. They sent the solution within that time. The appliance went back up and has continued to work properly.

The setup is very straightforward, not too complex. Their tech team is very helpful.

As far as I know, they are very successful in DDoS protection. Because they know it, their service prices are too high. They provide cloud DDoS protection for ISPs, but that is also too expensive. 

We are evaluating other options. We may apply one if we find an appropriate solution. As I mentioned before, Arbor DDoS prices are too high, it's very expensive. It would be better to have more than one vendor in our infrastructure, because there is no competition when you have one vendor or one solution.

Arbor is very good at what it does. If you have enough budget you can apply it to your infrastructure and use its flexibility and reporting features very well. But if you don't have the budget and you don't expand the budget for the coming next years, I suggest not getting in touch with Arbor.

Five or six engineers can log in to devices, but in our company two people are managing infrastructure. There are always ways to optimize it, but we have been working for two years to optimize it and it's in a good situation compared to two years ago.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. My rating is based on the general problems that we had and the solutions for them, as well as the daily stability of these devices.

We are using nearly all the features of Arbor. Currently, they are enough for us, but in the future, if there are different kinds of DDoS attacks I believe that Arbor DDoS will also take action against them.

The main focus was DDoS protection.

Some months ago, in Mexico, we had presidential elections. At that time it was very important to deny DDoS attacks, especially on the platform for counting votes in the election. This solution was good for our customers.

• AIF
• Cloud Signalling - In my previous environment, we worked with Arbor as a carrier but in my current company some of our customers have the solution on-premise and we have to synchronize the solution with the Arbor solution that our customers have in their enterprises. The ability to work with the Arbor solution on the carrier side and on-premise provides solutions for both types of customers.

The look and feel of the management console is a little old, excessively simple. If you compare it with other solutions, the look and feel of the console is like you're using technology from five or six years ago. It doesn't show all the technology that is actually behind it. It looks like an older solution, even though it is not.

The first impression needs to be more mature. It needs to be something that you would be proud to show someone. If you have a visitor to your SOC and you show him your installation, you need something more impressive. The look and feel of other brands is really nice, while Arbor is really simple. It's a good solution but not as spectacular as others. It's a matter of marketing, not performance.

The product is very stable. 

The scalability is really amazing. That was part of the equation for one particular customer. When they understood how the bandwidth can be shared between different branches of their backbone, that they could really grow by correctly re-routing traffic, they were really happy with the solution.

My interaction with tech support was really nice. I used to be part of HPE some time ago and I understand how those kinds of companies work. You have to have all the requirements before you make an appointment with the engineers. When we followed up with all the requirements that Arbor needed, the process was very straightforward.

In terms of submitting a ticket, they are responsive and knowledgeable. They are very experienced people.

My former company didn't have a previous solution. The company was new in Mexico and there were many considerations regarding government involvement in the industry, so security considerations were not there at that time.

Arbor is the official solution for my former company, worldwide. Also, Arbor was sold as OEM as part of Cisco, and Cisco has a very strong position in that company. Both of those facts helped push the Arbor solution there.

The setup is very straightforward, once the final architecture is decided. 

However, the decision regarding the final architecture was not very simple because the carrier environment is very complex. In addition, at the time, the carrier I was working for bought another small carrier and was doing the integration between both their installations and backbones. That was very complex. But once all those details were decided, the placement of the Arbor solution was very straightforward.

The setup work and testing of the Arbor solution took about three to four weeks, not including all the pre-planning and architecture discussions.

I played a part, but Arbor engineers do the whole installation process. I helped as much as I could but Arbor wants the implementation done by Arbor techs. I helped with some minor activities.

For the deployment, there was one senior engineer and one junior engineer. On our side, there were a number of people, me and a couple of other engineers. And when we tested the mitigation between different branches, there were three Arbor engineers with us.

Because the solutions from competitors are very different, it's not easy to compare. However, the licensing from Arbor is clear and understandable and the pricing is reasonable when looking at the market, in general.

Don't worry that it is complex because, out-of-the-box, it protects you from the basics. Just open it and connect, that's all you have to do. But if you are making an investment of this type because you have to be protected against all scenarios, you have two options: close support from Arbor or a specialized engineer. If you have those resources, all the rest is very straightforward. It becomes a simple solution that can give you good results.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. I try to put myself in the shoes of our company's owner. If a solution is simple to operate and gives good results, it's good for me. The solution needs to do what it's supposed to do and be simple to manage.

It is mostly for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). It is for operations on the service provider and network security operations. It is a good solution.

It improves our organization by preventing attacks and improving the availability of the network on services, which provides a better service to customers.

We are able to respond quickly and prevent DDoS attacks.

There is some room for AI to take place.

Stability is perfectly good. I have not seen an issue in years.

Its scalability is big. It is for large deployments of big organizations and service providers.

Technical support is good. They provide quite good support. They have different levels depending on the pockets that you have bought, so you get the relative support. They have a lot of levels for support and good SLAs.

The initial setup is complex, but experts are involved. Even with experts from both the vendor and the operator side, the initial set up can take some time, though it is essential.

We work with different vendors from different industries.

Most important important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• How the offering covers the business needs.
• The reputation of the vendor.

Arbor Pravail APS devices are using for protecting availability of services. DDOS, rating, and behavior analyses are the base of this product. 

Arbor Pravail APS devices provides easy management, high visibility, and quick response capabilities. Therefore, we can quickly complete the POV PoC demo process.

Arbor Pravail APS products provide high visibility. With real-time packet capture features, you can easily and quickly response. 

Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved.

• Very user-friendly GUI
• Simplest way of mitigation
• Predefined filters/techniques to easily stop the attacks and start mitigation.

My last project was with the biggest banks of India (almost all of them) and MNC, so it helped us to protect their network from present DoS/DDoS attacks.

Auto mitigation is a feature provided when DDoS is observed on any of link/customer (configured under auto mitigation). It automatically starts mitigation with default filters. In default filter mode, there could be an impact on the customer’s link,

E.g., if we have enabled monitoring of internal traffic for that link/customer, it starts mitigation on legitimate traffic. It can also creates looping in the network for any misconfiguration, which can impact the ISP’s internal network and the customer's link utilization.

Two years.

No issues.

No issues.

No issues.

A seven out of 10, because response times from Arbor TAC are little higher.

An eight out of 10. Very good.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

The implementation was done by Arbor itself. They were excellent.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Be in direct contact with Arbor TAC rather than choosing a vendor in-between.

Arbor has the ability to learn and self-create the appropriate profile for each customer. This ensures that false positives are kept to a minimum.

It provides a much more efficient protection of our customers.

A small improvement could be a better reporting system.

I've used this solution for two years.

No. Since day one, the product works without any issues.

I didn't encounter issues with scalability.

Very Good. The technical support team was there each time we needed them, offering valuable help and advice.

I did not use a different solution prior to Arbor DDoS.

No, the initial setup was easy. The excellent interface makes it easy to configure.

Check if you can combine the product’s Cloud Signaling capabilities with your upstream provider. This will enhance your DDOS protection even further

Start with a small license. Measure your bandwidth requirements.

Yes. Checkpoint.

• As an ISP, it is important to know from where the traffic comes so as to neutralize any attacks.

• The Arbor Networks SP device provided great visualization of the network traffic.

• Arbor Networks TMS is for cleaning the DDoS traffic, which is used sparsely.

The Arbor Networks SP device allowed us to optimize the network traffic. For example, it helped us to find the best IP network route to reach certain countries with low latency.

My opinion is that these Arbor devices should be scalable, in terms of the hardware.

Network bandwidth is rapidly increasing. Therefore, it is not practical to predict the network traffic as what it will be in five years time and also, to accordingly plan the required hardware specifications.

I have been using this solution since 2009.

We have been using the Arbor Peakflow SP CP-5000 and Arbor Peakflow TMS 2700.

Both the devices were very stable at the operation.

Unfortunately, these devices are not scalable and we have to upgrade to the next model in order to increase the threat mitigation capabilities.

We’ve received technical support mainly from Thailand. The guy who supported us was very competent with the products.

We were not using any other solution before.

The initial IP configuration has to be done in a command line, but the rest you can do via the web interface.

As a comparatively medium-scale ISP, we struggled with the license restrictions. By default, the Arbor SP device has only five licenses, which means only five routers can be integrated.

At that time (2008-09), when we checked the other options, there was not even a single product vendor that had the ability to do both network traffic analysis and DDoS traffic cleansing.

There were other proposals such as Radware and Cisco Guard for DDOS protection.

It is vital to identify the number of routers that are going to be integrated and the scrubbing capacity required for the expected lifetime of the product, as it is not scalable once you have purchased it.

For others who expect to implement Arbor, the key prerequisite is to identify the network devices that are going to integrate, since it will dictate the licensing. Since it is not scalable, so users should have to get this right before purchasing the product.