tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post3348759706014529321..comments2024-03-21T15:44:25.378+01:00Comments on CCMA's blog: Curious story of VSX Management bundleValeri Loukinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11915389342131738939noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-63395808032092388092015-08-07T17:08:38.673+02:002015-08-07T17:08:38.673+02:00I am afraid you have misunderstood what this post ...I am afraid you have misunderstood what this post is about. I have never mentioned hosting multiple or single legal entities. We are not talking about legal entities at all. We are talking about bundle licensing which is not longer working as before.Valeri Loukinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915389342131738939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-77416931108127059582015-08-07T16:54:53.565+02:002015-08-07T16:54:53.565+02:00It looks like they did this for legal reasons, fro...It looks like they did this for legal reasons, from reading the VSX guide it states that in order for legal separation you need to use Provider-1.<br /><br />"Note - According to the Check Point EULA (End User License Agreement), a Security Gateway can only manage security policies for Virtual Systems belonging to a single legal entity. In order to manage Virtual Systems belonging to multiple legal entities, you need to deploy a Multi-Domain Security Management solution with a separate Domain Management Server for each legal entity. For more information regarding Licensing, refer to your Check Point Reseller."Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13351789285892321823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-89347328716579135282015-07-18T20:09:22.647+02:002015-07-18T20:09:22.647+02:00Regular domain blades were never additive. Neverth...Regular domain blades were never additive. Nevertheless VSX NGX bundle was additive. In brief, we are screwed now more than before.Valeri Loukinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915389342131738939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-2034431384240846332015-07-18T19:53:21.037+02:002015-07-18T19:53:21.037+02:00I can confirm that domain blades are not additive ...I can confirm that domain blades are not additive - just found out the hard way for a domain with 3 gateways. Bugger - Now I need to trade in 2 x DMN200 to a DMN1000.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301462601726792411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-79840571356257822922015-06-30T23:58:11.557+02:002015-06-30T23:58:11.557+02:00Hi Valeri
I totally agree with you. When they crea...Hi Valeri<br />I totally agree with you. When they created the limitation on the dmnvsx license, that it only can be used in a single CMA, they really "killed" all the flexibility that they had before. You cannot have one DNMVSX and one physical license in the same CMA. You have to go for 10 or unlimited. I also heard that it is not allowed to use DMN200 to manage two VS's, even if that works. I guess that this is something that was not supposed to be supported, so i guess it will disappear in a later version, so i dont dare to sell it. <br /><br />I think that Check Point will loose a lot of cases because of this. It is not cost effective to sell Check Point in cases where you would need two or three VS' in each CMA.<br /><br />Another showstopper is that it should also be allowed to move VS licenses between VSX clusters. If you deside to have two VSX clusters, with for example 10 VS'es on each, and if you use all 10 on one cluster, but only two or three on the other, you will have to buy another 10, instead of just moving one of the licenses from thet other cluster.<br /><br />I really hope that Check Point will do something about this, because i think we loose a lot of business because of it. Tsolberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13345174321252638108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-32356399983898510722015-06-27T18:36:00.538+02:002015-06-27T18:36:00.538+02:00Jonas, I am pretty sure now domain blades are not ...Jonas, I am pretty sure now domain blades are not additive. That means you cannot combine DMN200 and DMN1000 and have 12 GWs in the domain. You have to jump to unlimited.<br /><br />As for the first one, That is what CP licensing expert has told me. I did not check by myself, but that statement makes sense to me.Valeri Loukinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915389342131738939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7755136273253085483.post-2133058165250587642015-06-27T11:56:53.979+02:002015-06-27T11:56:53.979+02:00Hi Valeri,
A couple of comments:
The behavior wi...Hi Valeri,<br /><br />A couple of comments: <br />The behavior with requirement for 4 gateways for 2 virtual systems is new to me. Back on R70/R71 I used a CPSB-DMN200 license for a CMA with two virtual systems. Has this changed without Check Point mentioning it? It has happened before which is quite frustrating.<br /><br />As I remember you are able to stack CPSB-DMN200 licenses. This was at least done back in R71.x - are you able to confirm if this is the case in R77 as well? Buying 2 x CPSB-DMN200 is still almost twice as expensive than 2 x CPSB-DMNVSX, but cheaper than the CPSB-CMN1000 :-)<br /><br />/JonasAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301462601726792411noreply@blogger.com