Radware vs Arbor

dennis dennis at justipit.com
Thu Sep 26 20:34:44 UTC 2013

Surely  both vendors have gear in many of the Tier1 carriers whether it be 
for layered security or dual vendor approach.   When it comes down to 
deciding between the two you need to consider the deployment models and 
techniques in use.  These two vendors strong points are in two separate 
areas.  Arbor Peakflow is a very good traffic analysis tool which leverages 
netflow from your existing routers for probes providing good l3-l4 
volumetric flood detection.  Once a pps/bw anomaly is detected you can 
decide whether to reroute traffic into a scrubbing device (TMS/Radware, 
etc). Arbor common deployment is OOP netflow collection with redirection to 
scrubbing center.   On the other hand Radware is a full packet inspection 
and mitigation  (Layers 3-7) appliance.     Radware is a transparent  device 
with it's most common deployments inline, scrubbing center and out of path 
TAP modes.

From: "Beavis" <pfunix at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:57 PM
To: "Tempest" <tempestterror at gmail.com>
Cc: <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Radware vs Arbor

> For a DDoS solution; my experience leans on arbor's peakflow and their
> partnership with other upstream carrier's (Level3, Peer1, etc.) which 
> makes
> sense since most of the attacks are distributed having recon work done by
> an organization like arbor makes you only worry about the attack types 
> that
> come into your network and not much the top part complexities of it.
> I am in no relationship with arbor or any of it's employees. this is 
> solely
> based on my knowledge of the product.
> regards,
> -Beavis
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Tempest <tempestterror at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doing a bunch of research, and I can't find a meaningful comparison of
>> these two products.  Work for a carrier, and I am looking at implementing 
>> a
>> DDoS mitigation service that we can sell to our customers.  Radware is
>> cheaper, but I am seeing a lot of noise in various forums that makes me
>> question their viability for what we need.  Arbor has most of the market,
>> and I assume there is good reason for it.  Both companies seem to be very
>> deceptive about how they compare to the other.  Anyone out there with 
>> good
>> hands on experience that can compare?  Not interested in input from 
>> either
>> company, we get plenty of that already.  Good experience, or links to 
>> good
>> write ups would be excellent...
>> Davis B.
> -- 
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
> Disclaimer:
> http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

More information about the NANOG mailing list