pfSense flexibility overall is pretty good. They are making some really big improvements. That said, they're a long way from enterprise. They advertise things that they don't have. I've worked for probably 30% of the Corporate 100, and they won't tolerate the high availability and it being as buggy as it is. The fact that if you configure it incorrectly without any visual indications that it's not done in the way Netscape does, then it will not only break the firewall, it will break both firewalls. The only way you can even try to recover is by getting new images from Netgate. You have to open up a tech support case, download the image for, then reimage the firewalls, and reapply your configuration. The fact that you can completely brick your firewalls just by having a configuration that they allow, and they don't even don't tell you there's a problem until they both go down. That's totally unacceptable in an enterprise. As a standalone firewall, they're excellent. As an enterprise, we're not touching it with a ten-foot pole. It’s difficult to configure and use add-on features. It's really easy to add them. On the website, they say “Oh, we do this, this, and this.” However, they do a lot through third-party add-ons. The problem is, if there's any problems at all, the very first thing they want you to do is disable those add-ons. So that's not really supporting anything. There are two ways that firewalls are viewed: talking to the firewall and talking through the firewall. If you're talking about “to the firewall,” then it's a very robust, very secure firewall. However, it doesn't have things that they claim helps with protecting data, most of it's third party. If you want to do all these things that are typically associated with enterprise-level firewalls, most of them are done by a third party. It's not actually cooked into their product. I like their OSPF. I wish it was more current. The only bugs that are in the OSPF are ones that have been known about for almost two years. Maybe they're they're victims of their own success. Their growth curve has outstripped their technical support and has outstripped their ability to develop. They're just growing so fast. They're trying to do everything. Updates from third parties can take too long. For example, if there's a problem with a package and no available update is available, you have to wait. Since it's via a third party, there's no definable schedule, as the update needs to come from a third-party open organization with no financial interest to make the process faster. Sometimes, there's more finger-pointing than resolution. In, OSPF, they give you lots of information. However, when it comes to hardcore troubleshooting of different routing zones or things like that, then you had to keep dropping down to the CLI in order to get it. And that's where your experience can change quite a bit. If you're running OSPF on Cumulus or some of the other big routing or switching solutions, then they're running much newer versions of it, which are all bug-patched and fixed. However, pfSense is running on an operating system that is not theirs. They don't necessarily have full control over it. When you get a real enterprise firewall, and when you hook up the redundancy, you expect redundancy to work and be predictable. And never ever will the redundancy crash your system. If you don't create the interfaces in the exact same order on both firewalls every single time, if so much as one interface is out of order, if the command line is different because of the way the operating system works, you will slowly corrupt your configuration to the point where it'll break.
