I am in the setup stages of setting up MWG 6.8.7 on an appliance we purchased a few months ago. I'm wondering if I should reload 7.0.0 and go that route. Does 7.0.0 support the existing ICAP client?
My plan was to leave our proxy on ISA and and use the ICAP plugin and pass the auth to MWG rules. I'm curious if those using this method are happy with the performance of the ICAP solution. In my initial testing, it does slow traffic down a bunch and seems slower that what I was used to in the past when I was running SurfControl filtering on my ISA server. Would it be better to use the MWG inside of ISA and route traffic through it instead of using the ICAP solution? Pros ans Cons?
valid questions! I guess it would make sense to rethink your architecture and based on that consider what solution suites best.
ICAP is a good option, however, it is known that the chaining part is giving you better control and flexibility.
It might be a solution to replace ISA with MWG, or to place MWG in front of ISA to benefit from its capabilities. The question is what problem solves ISA for you currently?
Thanks for the reply Michael! We have been using ISA as our firewall for many years and use it for both as our proxy for internet access as well as custom rules for specific web applications. I like the idea of using MWG inside of ISA and will be testing that option out today. Any cons you can think of with doing it this way? 95% of our workstations get there proxy settings from a domain policy, so that should be an easy change. My only concern is that we use an ISA add-on called bandwidth splitter to manage internet usage per workstation and I'm not clear on if this information will still get passed on correctly to ISA to allow for this to coninue.