Cisco RV Router after Sophos?

Hi,

I fail to understand why you would spend money on Cisco RV router for home use when you have a free UTM that does the same functions?

The UTM does not do routing unless you tell it to. You can enable firewall rules only, maybe IPS but that seems a big waste of functionaltiy.

You will need a firewall rule and an MASQ and that is all. If you really wanted to you could put the UTM in bridge mode so the RV does all the work.

Ian

Thanks so much Ian. I bought the RV awhile ago and before I knew about Sophos UTM. So that is why I was thinking I'd like to still utilize it. I guess the only reason I would not was if it would be less secure to have Modem > UTM > Cisco > LAN than Modem > UTM > LAN.

So I can have UTM after the modem and have it act as a firewall and perform content filtering, and then have the RV still act as a firewall and perform it's currently set content filtering? If I set the UTM in bridge mode, would I still need to a firewall run and MASQ?

Hi

the UTM can do all that you want without the RV. What are you trying to achieve?

In bridge mode the UTM will still act as a firewall and pass the external authenticating functions to the RV.

With your setup the RV is not adding any value, the UTM in standard mode with do your content filtering and provide m management all in the one place.

Putting the UTM ahead of the RV will give you double firewall features but I fail to see any advantages just more management trying to resolve which box is not working correctly. With your  opposed setup you could disable the MASQ in the RV because the UTM will reform that function.

If you are using a 192.168 or a 172.16 address range then you will need a MASQ/NAT on your internet interface.

Ian

Hi

the UTM can do all that you want without the RV. What are you trying to achieve?

In bridge mode the UTM will still act as a firewall and pass the external authenticating functions to the RV.

With your setup the RV is not adding any value, the UTM in standard mode with do your content filtering and provide m management all in the one place.

Putting the UTM ahead of the RV will give you double firewall features but I fail to see any advantages just more management trying to resolve which box is not working correctly. With your  opposed setup you could disable the MASQ in the RV because the UTM will reform that function.

If you are using a 192.168 or a 172.16 address range then you will need a MASQ/NAT on your internet interface.

Ian

Thanks, makes sense. I guess all I was trying to achieve was not wasting the money on the RV. Guess I could try to sell it.

If there is no added value in having UTM > RV for extra security with redundant firewall etc. then I may just consider selling the RV. Maybe initially I will try it with Modem > UTM > RV to see how it is.

So I would set the UTM in bridge mode and then create a rule on the UTM and RV?

Hi,

I have never setup a UTM in bridge mode, so some of this is guess work or from reading other threads.

In Bridge mode the UTM acts as a firewall and some of the other functions you enable, not all functions are available. You would in the very least need a rule to allow traffic through the bridge and have your other rules in the RV. The UTM in stir setup does the inspection etc but is not the end point, that would be the RV.

Ian