Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Our primary use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is segregation between different environments. We put Cisco Secure Firewall between each of those environments to create this segregation. 

Cisco Secure Firewall improved our organization. We have it in every one of our French offices. 

What I like about Cisco Secure Firewall is that you get to integrate it into one box. For example, you can have one big switch with a model inside of it. This makes it easy to manage. 

One thing that Cisco could improve is the GUI. The graphic user interface should be more user-friendly. If you compare it with some of its competitor's GUIs, Cisco falls short in terms of how rules are pushed. 

We have also run into issues with functionality and flexibility. Cisco does fall behind its competitors in this regard. It's our opinion that Cisco is not a leader in security devices. 

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for two decades. 

We are satisfied with the level of support we get from Cisco. Getting support is quite easy. When we have a problem, our engineer just opens up a case and we get a reply quickly. The support usually has deep knowledge of the solution. 

Positive

I was involved in the initial deployment. It was quite simple, not complex at all. 

We have seen a return on investment in terms of price because we have a partnership with our provider. 

We chose Cisco Secure Firewall because we were already using Cisco switch routers and other products, so we wanted everything to be from one provider. However, we do use other products as an additional security measure.

The solution does help us save time because it enables us to do a good job of filtering from the get-go. This ensures we have fewer potential threats to look through.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not helped us consolidate tools because part of our security strategy is having multiple firewalls from different providers. Our company policy is that it is better to have different technology, so we do have some overlap.

We use it as a firewall or for UTM at the data center.

We like the standard firewall features. It's quite a capable box for UTM.

Sometimes my customers say that Cisco firewalls are a bit more difficult compared to Fortigate or Palo Alto. There is complexity in the configuration and the GUI could be improved.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewalls for as long as I have been working here, which is seven years.

Once installed, it's quite stable. We don't have many issues after it's deployed. Both the hardware and software are quite stable.

As a firewall, it's in use all the time. Whether there will be increased usage depends on how security risks increase. But at the moment, there's no expectation for an increase in use.

Cisco's technical support is usually quite satisfactory, and we get a reasonable response in a reasonable time to any inquiry we make.

Positive

The initial setup is not that simple. I don't do the installation myself, but from what I hear it's more complicated than some of the other firewall products.

We usually do our installation in two or three hours. Our customers usually have between 10 and 50 users and they are generally IT admins.

We have three people who work in the field and manage deployments, and another five to 10 to manage the solution.

If you use the full functionality of Cisco ASA, it's worth the cost. But I don't think our company product is using the full capacity of the Cisco ASA.

Licensing, recently, has been getting more complicated. In particular, the Smart Licensing that came out is quite complicated. I don't know what's going on. Our sales team asks us questions about Smart accounts, but I don't know what it is and Cisco is making it so complicated. They call it Smart, but it's complicated. I prefer the traditional license where you buy it once.

When talking with our customers, I would not recommend our company's Cisco products for their security. It depends on their requirements, but if they want full security, I wouldn't say that Cisco ASA is the one choice.

My advice would be to do a PoC first.

I work for an engineering company that has multiple sites located in different locations, overseas and domestically in Pakistan. There are 30 to 35 sites connected to our network. We restrict the website at these locations using the Cisco Firepower module.

The main thing that I love the most is its policy and objects. Whenever I try to give access to a user, I can create an object via group creation in the object fields. This way, I am not able to enter a user in the policy repeatedly. 

Cisco Firepower is not completely integrated with Active Directory. We are trying to use Active Directory to restrict users by using some security groups that are not integrated within the Cisco Firepower module. This is the main issue that we are facing. 

There are some other issues related to their reports where we want to extract some kind of user activity. When a user tries to connect to our website, we are unable to read its logs in a proper manner and the report is not per our requirement. These are two things that we are facing.

Per my requirements, this product needs improvement. For example, I want to use and integrate with Active Directory groups. 

We have been using it since last year.

It is a stable product.

I haven't tried to work with Cisco support.

In the last 10 years, we were using the Barracuda Web Security. Compared with that product, I would give this solution six or seven out of 10 when compared to Barracuda. Barracuda has one of the best web security features, giving access to users by deploying a web agent on client computers at different sites. 

Barracuda Web Security's hardware was obsolete so our management never tried to renew its license. That is why we are trying to use the Cisco Firepower module. We want to understand their web security gateways, web security logs, what it provides, and the kind of reporting it has. We are currently doing research and development regarding what features and facilities it provides us compared to our requirements.

I am happy with the web security. However, I am not happy with the groups, reports, and integration with Active Directory.

We are using the web security, and only the web security feature. Therefore, if someone asked me to give them advice about the Cisco product, then I will definitely not recommend it since it is not fulfilling our requirement. We have different sites located domestically and at overseas sites, which is about 30 to 35 sites. It is not locating any of the clients. This is compared to the Barracuda web agent on the client computer, which is always connected to Barracuda with live IP addresses, pushing and pulling all the procedures and policies to that client and computer. This is why I will not recommend the product to anyone who has a similar situation to ours. .

I would love to use the product in the future, if my requirements are met.

I would rate the product as four out of 10.

In the new design, I put Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall as a LAN segment and as the data center firewall. In the old design, I just used FortiGate Firewall for configurations, and we are going to replace it. The complete solution will be replaced with a two-tiered data center.

I like that Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is reliable. Support is also good. 

We only have an issue with time sync with Cisco ASA and NTP. If the time is out of sync, it will be a disaster for the failover.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for about 11 years. 

Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is a stable solution. 

Scalability is good, but just like the issue with Palo Alto and Fortigate, there is also an issue with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall. I can configure it easily because of my Cisco background, but others in my team aren't comfortable with it.

Technical support is good. They were both fast and reliable and quick in making decisions. We faced specific issues, and tech support was efficient and provided an immediate solution. Other firewall vendors are slow to respond, and I'm not satisfied. It's also easy to Google and find solutions to our problems. We can't do that for other firewalls.

On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a five.

Positive

We used FortiGate Firewall, but we are replacing it with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall because we had issues with HP solutions. We also switched because I am Cisco certified, and my background and expertise are in Cisco.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We have seen a return on our investment. 

I will tell potential users that the data center firewall is a good solution. But most of the companies are using other firewalls like Palo Alto and FortiGate. Most of the design architects prefer the parameters of the firewalls like we prefer the data center firewall.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall a ten.

They were placed in a company on the perimeter near the ISP. There were two clusters. One cluster was at the front, and one cluster was near the data center to filter the traffic from the users to the data center and from the data center to the users and outside.

Our clients were completely satisfied with this firewall in terms of protection from attacks, filtering of the traffic that they wanted, being able to see inside the zip files, etc.

I have experience with URL filtering, and it is very good for URL filtering. You can filter URLs based on the categories, and it does a good job. It can also do deep packet inspection.

Its IPS engine also works very fine. I don't have much experience with it because I am an IT integrator, and we only configured it, but the company for which we configured these firewalls used this feature, and they say that IPS works very fine. They were also very pleased with its reporting. They said that its reporting is better than other firewalls they have had.

When you make any changes, irrespective of whether they are big or small, Firepower takes too much time. It is very time-consuming. Even for small changes, you have to wait for 60 seconds or maybe more, which is not good. Similarly, when you have many IPS rules and policies, it slows down, and there is an impact on its performance.

In terms of tracking users, the Palo Alto Networks firewall is better than Cisco Firepower.

It is very stable because it is based on the Cisco ASA Firewall hardware, which is an old-generation firewall. I have had Cisco ASA Firewall for more than 10 years, and they have been working fine till now. So, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall's performance and stability are the best. I have never seen any issues or heard from anyone that it is bad.

Its scalability is very good. It was a small implementation. Traffic was maximum of 150 megabits per second. 

I haven't worked with Cisco support.

I have had experience with the Fortinet FortiGate firewall. It is very easy, and it does its job very well. Both Firepower and FortiGate do their job very well, but I like the Palo Alto Networks firewall the most. I have not experienced it in a real environment. I have placed it in my lab. It is a very complex firewall, and you need to know how to configure it, but it is the best firewall that I have seen in my life.

As compare to the Palo Alto Networks firewall, both Firepower and FortiGate are simpler. You can just learn which button to use and how to write rules, policies, etc. In Palo Alto, you can not guess this. You should know where each button is, how it works, and what it does. If you don't know, you cannot get the performance you want from Palo Alto. So, Firepower and FortiGate are easier to learn.

Firepower is very good for a small implementation. If you are doing a Cisco setup, you can place kind of 16 devices in one cluster. When it comes to the real environment, you need to have maybe three devices in one cluster. If two of them are in one data center and the third one is in another data center, the third firewall does not work very well when it comes to traffic flow because of the MAC address. When you want to implement Firepower in small infrastructures, it is very good, but in big infrastructures, you would have some problems with it. So, I won't use it in a large environment with five gigabits per second traffic. I will use the Palo Alto firewall for a large environment.

It is straightforward. For me, it is very simple. The menu is quite impressive. Everything that you want to do can be done from the web user interface. You don't need to access the CLI if you don't like it. It is very easy to make rules with its web user interface.

Its deployment took two days. In terms of the implementation strategy, the first cluster was in the data center, and its main job was to filter user traffic going to the data center. The second cluster was on the edge. Its main job was to mitigate attacks on the inside network and to capture the traffic that could have viruses, malicious activities, etc.

I deployed it myself, and it took me two days to deploy two clusters of Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall. 

I think our client did get an ROI. They are very satisfied with what they can do with these firewalls. It fits all of their needs.

Its price is in the middle range. Both Firepower and FortiGate are not cheap. Palo Alto and Check Point are the cheapest ones.

I don't remember any costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Our client didn't implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments because they were a small company, and they didn't need that kind of segmentation. I am not sure if it reduced their firewall operational costs because they were a small company, and the traffic was not so high.

I would rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall an eight out of 10.

We primarily use it for our clients. We have one or more at each client site - or multiple locations if they have multiple locations.

Typically our clients are up to about 500 users. Most of them are smaller than that, but they go as large as 500. They're using the solution for the full next-gen firewall stacks - intrusion protection, URL filtering, advanced malware protection, or so-called AMP. Those are the three subscription services that Cisco sells. All of our clients have those subscription services enabled at their main location. Typically, they're just protecting users that are behind the firewall. We also use it for site-to-site VPN, and we use it for client-to-site VPN.

In terms of our clients, security is one of those things that, ideally, nobody notices. It improves the functioning in the sense that you don't get hacked. However, from a noticeable, management point of view, the URL filtering is a pretty significant enhancement. People are able to block access to various websites by category. It isn't revolutionary. Lots of products do this. However, it's a nice sort of add-on to a firewall product.

At the end of the day, the solution offers good productivity enhancement to a company.

Cisco's support is great. 

For experienced users, they are pretty much able do anything they want in the interface with few restrictions.

The command-line interface is really useful for us. We script basic installations and modifications through the command-line, which is considered sort of old school, and yet it allows us to fully document the changes that we're making due to the fact that we can save the exact script that was applied and say, "Here are the changes that we made." 

We can have less experienced people do initial takes on an install. They can edit a template, and we can have a more experienced person review the template, and then apply it, and we don't have to worry about whether anyone inexperienced went into certain corners of the interface and made changes or whatever.

Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility.

I would say that in inexperienced hands, the interface can be kind of overwhelming. There are just a lot of options. It's too much if you don't know what you are looking for or trying to do.  

The GUI still uses Java, which feels out of date today. That said, it's an excellent GUI.

The biggest downside is that Cisco has multiple firewall lines. The ASA line which is what we sell, and we sell most of the latest versions of it, are kind of two families. One is a little older, one's a little newer. We mostly sell the newer family. Cisco is kind of de-emphasizing this particular line of products in their firewall stable. That's unfortunate. 

They have the ASA line, Meraki, which is a company they bought some years ago where all the management is sort of cloud interface that they provide rather than a kind of interface that you manage right on the box. They also bought Snort and they integrated the Snort intrusion detection into the ASA boxes. In the last couple of years, they've come out with a sort-of replacement to Snort, a line of firewalls that don't use IOS.

It's always been that the intrusion prevention and the based firewalling features had separate interfaces within IOS. They've eliminated IOS in this new product line and built it from the ground up. We haven't started using that product yet. They have higher performance numbers on that line, and that's clearly the future for them, but it hasn't reached feature parity yet with the ASA. 

The main downside is that it feels a little bit like a dead end at this point. One needs to decide to move to one of these other Cisco lines or a non-Cisco line, at some point. We haven't done the research or made the plunge yet.

What I would like to see is a more inexpensive logging solution. They should offer either the ability to maintain longer-term logs right on the firewall or an inexpensive server-based logging solution. Cisco has logging solutions, however, they're very high end.

We've been using the solution for 20 or more years. It's been well over two decades at this point.

The solution is solid. It's a big advantage of choosing Cisco. There are no worries about stability at all.

The scalability of the solution is good. Within our customer base, it is absolutely scalable. You can go very large with it. However, if you really want the highest speeds, you have to move off of the IOS ASA line and onto the newer stuff.

Typically our clients cap out at 500 employees.

Technical support is excellent. They are extremely knowledgeable and responsive. It'd rate the ten out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the level of support Cisco provides.

We did use Juniper's NetScreen product on and off for a while. We stopped using it about ten years ago now.

We had previous experience with the Cisco gear, so we were comfortable with it, and Juniper bought the NetScreen product and sunsetted it. You had to move into a different firewall product that was based on their equivalent of IOS, something called Juno OS, and we didn't like those products. Therefore, when they sunsetted the Juniper products, we looked around and settled on Cisco.

Due to the fact that we're experienced with it and we've scripted the command line, it's extremely simple for us. That said, I think it's complex for somebody that doesn't know the IOS platform.

We're Cisco resellers.

We're always on the latest version. I don't actually keep track of the version numbers myself, however, part of what the service that we provide for our clients is updating their firewalls to the latest version.

We use multiple deployment models. We use both on-premises and cloud versions. They are also all different sizes, according to the requirements of the company.

I'd advise other companies considering Cisco to be sure to factor in the cost of the ongoing security subscriptions and the ongoing SmartNet into the purchase price. Those things, over the years, represent more than the cost of the firewall itself - significantly more. However, I'd advise others to get the security subscriptions due to the fact that it really dramatically increases the security of the solution overall.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate them at an eight. We love the product, however, we feel like it's not Cisco's future direction, which is the only reason I would downgrade its score. To bring it up to a 10, they'd have to make it their main product line again, which they aren't going to do.

Currently, we have 16 remote sites. Some of them are sales offices and some of them are industrial plants. And we have a centralized IT department here in Brazil. The business asked me to support those remote sites. We started using the Firepower Threat Defense, which is one of the versions of next-gen firewalls from Cisco, at some of the sites. We have them operating at five sites, and we are deploying at a sixth site, in Mexico, with the same architecture. That architecture has the firewall running on the site's router, and we manage them all from here in Brazil.

Overall, I would summarize Firepower NGFW's effect on our company's security position by saying that, until now, we haven't had any major security incidents. The investment we made, and the investment we are still making in that platform, have worked because they are protecting us from any risks we are exposed to, having all these remote sites and using the internet as the way to connect those sites. They are doing what they promised and they are doing what we paid for.

For us, the main feature is due to the fact that we have internet connections for all these sites, and we use the internet to communicate with our data center using VPN. So the VPN support in these boxes is one of the most valuable features.

Also, with the firewall itself, the protection and security features, like URL filtering, the inspection, and the IPS feature, are also very valuable for us. We don't have IT staff at most of the sites so for us it's important to have a robust firewall at those sites, to support the business and give us peace of mind. If we do have an incident, since we don't have any IT personnel there for support, we need to do everything remotely.

It provides us with application visibility and control. We can see, on the dashboard, all the applications that are most used and which are under some sort of risk or vulnerability. From my perspective, which is more related to the network itself and the infrastructure, not the security aspect, it helps a lot when we need to check some situation or issue that could be related to any attack or any violation. We can see that there are one or two or three applications that are the top-consuming applications. We can use this information to analyze if there is a deviation or if it's something that we need to consider as normal behavior and increase the bandwidth on the site. It's very important to have this analytic view of what's happening. That's especially true for us, since we have information on all these remote sites but we don't have IT resources on-premises. Having this view of all the sites in the same pane of glass is very important.

It's not just the visibility of things, but the management of application behavior is very important. If I see that, for example, Facebook is consuming too much bandwidth, I can make a policy on the console here and deploy it to our remote offices. So the application visibility feature is one of the key parts of the solution.

NGFW's ability to provide visibility into threats is also one of the important features. Although we have several applications that are based on-premises — we have databases and file servers that only exist inside the company or inside those remote sites — we see more traffic going to and coming from the internet every day. It's not optional anymore to have visibility into all this traffic. More and more, we are moving things to Office 365 or other SaaS platforms which are hosted on the internet. We need to see this traffic crossing our network. It's a top priority for us.

When it comes to Talos, I recognized the importance of it before they were even calling it Cisco Talos. As a user of the URL filtering product, the IronPort appliances, for six or seven years, perhaps or more, I was introduced, at that time, to a community that was called SenderBase.org, which was like the father of the Cisco Talos. Knowing them from that time, and now, the work they do is very important. It provides knowledge of what is happening in the security space. The information they can collect from all the hardware and software they have deployed with their customers is great. But the intelligence they also have to analyze and provide fixes for things like Zero-day attacks, for example, is crucial. They are able to map and categorize risks. They're unbeatable, currently. Although we know that other vendors have tried to replicate this service or feature, the history they have and the way they do their work, make it unbeatable currently.

Some products supersede others within Cisco. I have three platforms and some of the features are the same in two products. It's not clear for us, as a  customer, if Cisco intends to have just one platform for security in the future or if they will offer one product for a particular segment, such as one product for the big companies, one product for the financial segment, another product for enterprise, and another product for small business.

Sometimes, Cisco itself has two products which are doing the same things in some areas. That is something they could make clearer for customers: the position of each product or the roadmap for having just one product. 

For example, I have a management console for the next-gen firewalls we are deploying. But the SD-WAN also has some security features and I would have to use another management console. I don't have integration between the products. Having this integration or a roadmap would help. I don't know if there will be one product only in the future, but at least having better integration between their own products is one area for improvement.

Also, the user interface for the Firepower management console is a little bit different from traditional Cisco management tools. If you look at products we already use, like Cisco Prime or other products that are cloud-based, they have a more modern user interface for managing the products. For Firepower, the user interface is not very user-friendly. It's a little bit confusing sometimes. This is another area where they could improve.

We have been using Cisco NGFWs for about for two years.

The stability is okay. It's robust enough to support the business we have. We haven't had any major issues with the product itself. Of course, we don't touch them frequently because it's a security deployment so it's not the type of thing where we make changes every day. Once we deploy them, and deploy the policies, we don't touch them frequently.

We have one issue at one of the sites, at times. There is a power outage at the site and the virtual machine itself crashes. We have to recover from the crash and reinstall the backup. It's something that is not related to the product itself. It's more that our infrastructure has a problem with power which led to a firewall problem, but the product itself is not the root cause.

It is scalable in our scenario. It is scalable the way we deploy it. It's the same template or architecture, and that was our intention, for all our remote sites. From this point of view, the scalability is okay. But if one of those remote sites increases in demand, in the number of users or in traffic, we don't have too much space to increase the firewall itself inside that deployment. We would probably need to replace or buy a new, more robust appliance. So the scalability for the architecture is fine. It's one of the major requirements for our distributed architecture. But scalability for the appliance itself, for the platform itself, could be a problem if we grow too much in a short period of time.

I don't know how to measure how extensively we use it, but it's very important because without it, we can't have VPN and we can't communicate with our headquarters. We have SAP as our ERP software and it's located in our data center here at our headquarters. If we can't communicate with the data center, we lose the ability to communicate with SAP. So if we don't have the firewall running on those remote sites, it is a major problem for us. We must have it running. Otherwise, our operations at these remote sites will be compromised. In terms of volume, 40 percent of our sites are deployed and we still have plans to deploy the other 60 percent, this year and next year.

Regarding future demands, if we create new business, like we are doing now in Mexico, our basic template has this next-gen firewall as part of it. So any other new, remote sites we deploy in the future, would use the same architecture and the same next-gen firewall.

For our remote sites we didn't use a specific security platform. We had the Cisco router itself and the protection that the Cisco router offers. But of course you can't compare that with a next-gen firewall. But here in our headquarters, we currently use Palo Alto for our main firewall solution. And before Palo Alto, we used Check Point.

The decision to use Cisco was because Cisco could offer us an integrated platform. We could have only one router at our remote sites which could support switch routing with acceleration, for IP telephony and for security. In the future we also intend to use SD-WAN in the same Cisco box. So the main advantage of using Cisco, aside from the fact that Cisco is, course, well-positioned between the most important players in this segment, is that Cisco could offer this solution in a single box. For us, not having IT resources at those remote sites, it was important to have a simple solution, meaning we don't have several boxes at the site. Once we can converge to a single box to support several features, including security, it's better for us.

The main aspect here is that if we had Fortinet or Check Point or Palo Alto, we would need another appliance just to manage security, and it wouldn't be integrated with what we have. Things like that would make the remote site more complex.

We don't currently have a big Cisco firewall to compare to our Palo Alto. But one thing that is totally different is the fact that Cisco can coexist with the router we have.

I participated in the first deployment. I know it's not hard to do, but it's also not easy. It requires some knowledge, the way we deploy it. We use next-gen firewalls inside the Cisco router. It's virtualized inside the Cisco router. So you need to set settings on the router itself to allow the traffic that comes to the router to go to the firewall and return to the router to. So it's not an easy setup but it's not very complex. It requires some knowledge, not only of security, but also of routing and related things. It's in the middle between complex and simple.

Once you have the templates for it, it's easier. It can take a day or two to deploy, or about 20 hours for the whole configuration.

The name of the local partner we use here in Brazil is InfraTI.

For the first deployment we had to understand how to do it because of the constraints. We have the router and we have the next-gen firewalls running inside the router. Until we decided how to deploy, it took a little while. But now we have the knowledge to do that more easily. They are able to deploy it satisfactorily. We are happy with them.

For deployment and maintenance of the solution, it requires two people and our partner. On our side there is an engineer to discuss the details, and then there is the person who does the deployment itself.

You must know exactly what features are important for you, and how you can manage all this infrastructure in the future. Sometimes you can have a product that is superior but it might demand an increase in manpower to manage all the software or platforms. Another point to consider is how good the integration is between products? You should check what features you need, what features you can have, and the integration with other products.

In terms of the maturity of our security implementation, we have had security appliances, software or hardware, for more than 15 years. So we have a long history of using security products. We started using Cisco competitors in the past and we still use them for our headquarters, where I am. Our main firewall is not currently Cisco, although we are in the process of evaluation and we will replace this firewall soon. Cisco is one of the brands being evaluated for that.

In the past, while it's not a next-gen firewall, we also used a Cisco product for URL filtering, up until this year.

We are moving to the cloud. We are starting to use Office 365, so we are moving email, for example, from on-premises to the cloud. But until June of this year, we mainly used security from Cisco. But we also have antivirus for endpoint protection. We also had Cisco IPS in the past, which was a dedicated appliance for that, but that was discontinued about two years ago. Those are the major products we use currently. In addition — although it's not specifically a security product — we use Cisco ISE here to support our guest network for authentication. We plan, in the near future, to increase the use of Cisco Identity Services Engine. When we start to use that to manage policies and the like, we will probably increase the integration. I know that both products can be integrated and that will be useful for us.

There's one other product which we use along with Cisco next-gen which is a SIEM from Splunk. Currently, that is the only integration we have with Cisco. We send logs from next-gen firewalls to the Splunk machine to be analyzed and correlated. 

Although I'm not involved on a daily basis in operations, I helped in the process of integrating it. It was very easy to integrate and it's a very valuable integration, because we can analyze and correlate all the events from the next-gens from Cisco, along with all the other logs we are collecting in our infrastructure. For example, we also collect logs from the Windows machine that we use to authenticate users. Having those logs correlated on the Splunk box is very valuable. The integration is very easy. I don't know who built what, but there's a kind of add-on on the Splunk that is made for connection to firewalls, or vice versa. The integration is very simple. You just point to the name of the server and a user name to integrate both.

ASA5585-SSP-60 was deployed after a migration from Juniper SRX5600. The solution is used for the protection of the mobile data network. It is protecting 3G/4G Internet customers and the Private APN.

So far, we are not satisfied by the move. The precedent solution is much more adapted to the Telco environment, although Cisco recommended this platform. Cisco ASA also brought our network down several times due to a memory leakage bug, which is still not resolved.

All features provided by the platform are quite the same for all other platforms. We rather missed some features we were used to, such as virtual routers

• VPN creation with Cisco is quite difficult: Some DH groups are not supported (compared to Juniper).
• Expected to see the enablement of virtual routing, which is key in a Telco environment. We need to provide this in LAN to LAN services with shared platforms (DNS, proxies, etc.).
• Application visibility 

Yes, a memory leakage issue which literally freeze the nodes (we have an HA environment). The issue is still not solved and the only recommendation from Cisco is to reboot the node.

Yes, the throughput highlighted on the datasheet (10Gbps) should be reviewed. This throughput is only for a UDP running environment, which you will never find in the real world. Rather consider a multiprotocol throughput.

Experience with technical support was mitigated. 

Technically, they denied any issues on the node and call the memory leak issue, "A cosmetic issue." They were stating that memory disappearance reported by SNMP was an error and will have no impact on the traffic. They have reviewed this since we have recorded several blackouts during the year.

We were using Juniper SRX5600. The switch was more a strategic decision than a technical one.

We are also using a 5520 for seven years in our datacenter and we are satisfied by this version.

The initial setup was very complex. Migration from Juniper (with wide usage of VR) to Cisco is complex and you should make sure to master all the flows on the node. Also, Juniper is more permissive on asymmetric traffic, which Cisco will deny by default. 

Implementation was performed by a Cisco recommended local partner. 

We were not satisfied at all (from the pre to post implementation). Their level of expertise was zero.

I do not know.

Nothing to highlight at this level. 

We did an evaluation with Check Point.

It is definitely not for Telco.