FortiGate Traffic Shaping Configuration in Dubai, UAE
A well-designed traffic-shaping policy gives an organisation a controlled way to decide what should happen when WAN capacity becomes contested. FourTeck can help assess the existing FortiGate environment, translate business priorities into shaping rules, define suitable limits and classes, test the result, and document what was changed without treating every network as if it needs the same template.
Start with the real bottleneck
Share the FortiGate model, FortiOS version, ISP speed, affected applications, user groups and whether SD-WAN or multiple WAN links are in use.
Control contention, not simply reduce speed.
Actual WAN capacity and traffic direction.
Shared, per-IP, class-based or profile shaping.
FortiOS version and current design.
Direct answer: what does FortiGate traffic shaping do?
FortiGate traffic shaping is a set of FortiOS controls used to influence how bandwidth is allocated among matching traffic flows. It can be used to cap selected traffic, reserve or prioritise capacity where appropriate, apply per-IP limits, map traffic into classes, or coordinate shaping with an SD-WAN design. It is most useful when a business has a known bandwidth bottleneck and needs important applications to remain usable during busy periods. Before proceeding, the buyer should confirm the real circuit speed, traffic direction, FortiGate model and FortiOS release, existing firewall and shaping rules, applications to protect or restrict, and the expected behaviour during congestion.
What the configuration is intended to do
Traffic shaping is not a substitute for adequate internet capacity. Its role is to make the use of available capacity more predictable when several services compete for a constrained path. A typical design may protect voice and interactive applications from large downloads, limit non-business streaming, keep guest access from consuming the whole circuit, control backup traffic during working hours, or distribute bandwidth more fairly among users.
The correct method depends on whether the objective is a hard maximum, a fair-share limit per source, class-based prioritisation, DSCP handling, interface-based shaping, or a combination that aligns with SD-WAN and firewall policy behaviour.
Who should consider it
This configuration can be relevant to businesses with shared WAN links, branch offices, voice and video workloads, cloud-heavy users, guest networks, scheduled transfers, remote sites or multiple departments that need different service levels. It can also help when a network has enough average bandwidth but suffers short congestion periods that affect latency-sensitive traffic.
It is less useful when the real problem is packet loss from the ISP, a failing interface, an undersized firewall, a routing loop, Wi-Fi interference, server performance, or an application problem unrelated to bandwidth contention. Assessment should therefore come before policy changes.
Business problems a shaping policy can help address
Voice degrades during downloads
Large transfers can fill a constrained link and increase delay or queueing. A shaping design can give voice-related traffic an appropriate treatment while controlling lower-priority flows, provided the application identification and WAN values are accurate.
Guest users consume too much capacity
A per-IP or policy-level approach can help create a fairer experience for guest or BYOD segments so a small number of users do not dominate the available bandwidth. The correct limit should reflect the site size and actual circuit.
Backups interfere with working hours
Scheduled backup, replication or large file movement can compete with ERP, SaaS and collaboration traffic. Shaping can be designed to cap or classify these flows, but the policy must match the right addresses, services or applications.
Branches share unequal WAN resources
Sites with different circuit sizes need different assumptions. A rule copied from a 1 Gbps head office may be wrong for a 100 Mbps branch. Shaping values, classes and SD-WAN interaction should be designed per bottleneck.
Service-fit matrix
| Business situation | Relevant assistance | Scope dependency |
|---|---|---|
| Voice or meetings become unstable when the link is busy | Traffic review, class or shaper design, congestion testing | WAN capacity, application identification, upstream behaviour |
| Guest Wi-Fi needs a controlled share | Per-IP or policy-level bandwidth planning | User count, guest VLAN, acceptable user experience |
| Cloud backup saturates the internet circuit | Match criteria review and maximum-bandwidth design | Backup destinations, schedules, encrypted application visibility |
| Multiple traffic classes are required | Class-based or shaping-profile planning | FortiOS support, interface bandwidth, class design |
| SD-WAN paths need traffic prioritisation | Review shaping in relation to SD-WAN rules and members | Topology, SLA rules, underlay speeds and FortiOS release |
FortiGate traffic shaping service information
Configuration dependencies that should be checked first
Traffic shaping works best when the design starts with an accurate view of where congestion occurs. Fortinet documentation describes shaping primarily around traffic leaving an interface, while current FortiOS also provides profile-based and ingress-oriented options for supported use cases. That does not mean every deployment should use every feature. The exact FortiOS release, hardware platform and current policy structure determine what is practical.
The configured bandwidth values must also reflect the real path. If an ISP circuit is sold as one speed but consistently delivers less at the FortiGate handoff, shaping against the marketing rate can leave the actual bottleneck outside the firewall’s control. Conversely, setting a value too low may unnecessarily restrict users. Testing should therefore use measured behaviour, not assumptions alone.
Application-based matching deserves similar care. Encrypted services, shared content-delivery infrastructure, changing SaaS endpoints and application-control requirements can affect classification. The proposed rule should be tested against real traffic and reviewed for overlap with existing firewall, SD-WAN and shaping policies.
A practical configuration journey
Measure and define the problem
Confirm the affected site, WAN path, busy periods, applications, user groups and symptoms. Separate congestion from packet loss, routing, Wi-Fi or server issues before changing QoS.
Map traffic to business importance
Decide which services must remain responsive, which can be capped, and whether fairness per user is required. Avoid giving every application “high” priority, because priority only creates value when classes are differentiated.
Choose the shaping mechanism
Select shared shaping, per-IP shaping, class/profile controls, marking or another supported approach according to the required outcome and current FortiOS capabilities.
Apply with rollback in mind
Take a configuration backup, identify the change window, document original values and apply only the agreed rules. Remote access dependency should be considered before touching WAN-related policies.
Test under realistic load
Validate the intended cap or priority, check affected applications, review counters and logs where appropriate, and compare user experience before and during controlled load.
Document and revisit
Record why each shaper exists, its values, match criteria and owner. Reassess when ISP bandwidth, applications, FortiOS versions or branch usage change.
Shared and per-IP shaping: choosing the right control
A shared traffic shaper is useful when a defined pool or policy needs an aggregate treatment. The bandwidth applies to matching traffic collectively according to how the shaper is configured and referenced. This can suit a business that wants to limit a category such as non-essential downloads to an overall ceiling, or reserve a controlled share for a specific group. The design must still consider whether multiple policies reference the same shaper, because the intended scope can change the effective behaviour.
Per-IP shaping addresses a different question: how much bandwidth should each individual source or destination IP be allowed to use? That can be helpful in guest networks, shared accommodation, training labs or large user segments where fairness matters more than an aggregate ceiling. A single user downloading a large file can then be prevented from consuming the entire allowance assigned to that population.
Neither method is automatically better. A per-IP cap can be unsuitable for applications that legitimately create many sessions or where a single IP represents many users behind another NAT device. A shared shaper can be too coarse if a few users monopolise its total allocation. FourTeck can help choose the method after reviewing addressing, NAT, user counts, topology and the business objective.
In some environments both controls may be relevant, but combinations should be introduced deliberately and tested. Overlapping limits can make troubleshooting difficult if administrators cannot tell which rule is constraining a flow.
Class-based shaping, priorities and queue behaviour
Current FortiOS documentation includes traffic shaping profiles that can use policing or queuing and can define multiple classes. This is useful when an organisation wants more than a simple maximum bandwidth limit. Traffic can be classified into different service groups and each group can be given a planned share or treatment according to the interface bandwidth and profile design.
The business value is clearest during congestion. A voice or interactive application may need lower delay, while bulk file transfer can tolerate waiting. The design should therefore start with application sensitivity rather than arbitrary labels. “High priority” should not be assigned to every important department, because if all traffic is elevated, the policy stops expressing a meaningful preference.
Queue options can also affect how traffic is handled as buffers fill. Advanced settings should be used only when there is a clear reason and a test plan. Changing queue behaviour without understanding the bottleneck can move the symptom rather than solve it.
FourTeck can help translate a service catalogue—voice, ERP, Microsoft 365, remote desktop, backup, guest internet, CCTV upload or other traffic—into a manageable class plan. The exact mapping should be verified against the applications and FortiOS features available in the customer environment.
Traffic shaping with SD-WAN and multi-link networks
A site using SD-WAN needs a wider view than a single-link office. Link selection, health checks, service rules and shaping can all influence what users experience. Fortinet documents SD-WAN traffic shaping and QoS options, including class-based shaping where a profile allocates portions of interface bandwidth. The practical design should therefore establish whether the business wants to choose a better path, limit traffic on a particular member, protect applications when a backup link is active, or combine path selection with bandwidth policy.
Backup circuits are especially important. A branch may run normally on a high-capacity primary link and fail over to a much smaller LTE, broadband or secondary circuit. Shaping values that are reasonable on the primary path can overwhelm the backup path. A change plan should consider both normal and degraded states.
The same principle applies to VPN overlays. The administrator needs to understand where classification occurs, which interface is the real bottleneck and whether the traffic is visible in a form that the shaping policy can match. Assumptions based only on the tunnel name can lead to a policy that does not affect the intended packets.
For multi-site customers, FourTeck can review link speeds and policy goals site by site, then prepare a repeatable design with documented per-site values instead of cloning one bandwidth number across every location.
Where this configuration is commonly useful
Corporate offices
Prioritise interactive business services during busy periods while keeping updates, large downloads and non-essential traffic within sensible limits. The policy should reflect department and application needs without creating unnecessary complexity.
Hospitality and guest networks
Provide a fairer guest experience while protecting operational applications such as property systems, payment services, staff communications and back-office connectivity. Per-user fairness may be more useful than one broad guest cap.
Schools and training centres
Control high-volume downloads or streaming when they interfere with learning systems, video classrooms or administrative services. Policy should be aligned with acceptable-use rules and genuine educational requirements.
Warehouses and logistics sites
Protect cloud ERP, scanners, warehouse-management access, VoIP and operational systems on sites that may have limited WAN options. CCTV upload or bulk synchronisation may need a planned share rather than unrestricted use.
Retail branches
Keep point-of-sale, inventory, payment and business connectivity responsive while guest Wi-Fi, software updates and media services use the same circuit. Failover-link capacity should be part of the design.
Multi-site enterprises
Apply consistent policy intent while keeping bandwidth values specific to each site. Central standards can define classes and naming, but branch circuit sizes and application mixes may require different numerical settings.
Integration and operational considerations
Traffic shaping sits inside a larger network design. Firewall policies determine whether traffic is allowed and may also influence application inspection. SD-WAN controls path selection. Routing determines the egress path. VLANs and addressing determine which users are grouped together. VPNs can change how traffic is encapsulated. Application control can affect how SaaS or encrypted applications are identified. Because these functions interact, a shaping rule should be reviewed in the context of the whole traffic path rather than as an isolated object.
Monitoring is also important. If users report that “the internet is slow,” administrators should compare interface utilisation, session behaviour, latency, packet loss and shaping counters before concluding that a shaper is the cause. A maximum-bandwidth rule doing exactly what it was designed to do may appear as a performance problem to a user who does not know the policy exists. Documentation and change ownership reduce this confusion.
Configuration management should include backups and a rollback plan. Any remote change that affects WAN traffic carries operational risk, especially if management access uses the same path. The maintenance plan should specify who can provide local assistance if remote connectivity is lost, what configuration snapshot exists, and which tests determine whether the change is accepted or reversed.
For larger environments, naming conventions matter. Shapers, classes and policies should describe purpose rather than temporary troubleshooting notes. A clear scheme such as business-critical, interactive, standard, bulk-transfer and guest can be easier to maintain than object names tied to an employee or one incident. Actual naming should follow the customer’s standards.
Questions to resolve before configuration
Identify the interface and direction where capacity is actually constrained. A policy on the wrong path will not solve the problem.
List applications by business impact and sensitivity to delay, not simply by department preference.
Limiting a flow and preferring a flow during congestion are different requirements and may call for different controls.
Guest networks and shared user pools may need per-IP fairness rather than one aggregate bandwidth limit.
If the backup WAN is slower, shaping and application expectations may need to change with the active path.
Define measurable acceptance criteria such as maximum transfer rate, application responsiveness or fair allocation under controlled load.
Procurement and change checklist
✓ FortiGate model and serial reference available
✓ FortiOS version and planned upgrade status confirmed
✓ Primary and backup WAN speeds documented
✓ Real measured bandwidth compared with ISP service rate
✓ Priority applications and user groups identified
✓ Traffic direction and egress interfaces confirmed
✓ Existing shaping policies and shapers reviewed
✓ SD-WAN, VPN and routing dependencies recorded
✓ Required caps, fairness or class priorities agreed
✓ Configuration backup and rollback method prepared
✓ Maintenance window and business contact agreed
✓ Post-change test cases documented
✓ Remote or on-site support expectation included in quote
How FourTeck can assist
FourTeck can support the engagement from requirement clarification through configuration planning. The first step is normally to understand the business symptom and technical path: which users are affected, which applications matter, which FortiGate is in the path, the software release, interface speeds, current firewall policies, and whether the site uses SD-WAN, VPN overlays or multiple internet links. That information allows the scope to be defined without assuming the issue is caused by insufficient shaping.
Where traffic shaping is appropriate, FourTeck can discuss a policy model that is understandable to the customer’s IT team. This may include selecting match criteria, deciding between shared and per-IP controls, planning class-based treatment, documenting interface bandwidth assumptions, and identifying test traffic. Implementation can then be quoted according to complexity, access method, number of sites, required change window and whether other firewall work is needed.
For buyers who are also reviewing the firewall platform itself, the Fortinet firewall Dubai overview can support broader appliance and deployment discussions. Customers can also browse FourTeck firewall products or review network security services when the requirement includes installation, migration or wider policy work.
The final scope should state what FourTeck will configure, what the customer must provide, which testing is included, and what falls outside the change. This keeps a bandwidth-policy project controlled and makes future troubleshooting easier.
UAE availability and support guidance
FortiGate traffic shaping configuration is a scoped technical service rather than a fixed physical item. Contact FourTeck to confirm current UAE availability, the preferred support method and the information required for quotation. Service scheduling can depend on the number of firewalls, FortiOS version, complexity of existing policies, whether a maintenance window is required, and whether changes must be coordinated with the ISP, application owner or another IT provider.
Remote configuration may be appropriate when secure administrative access, a reliable out-of-band contact and a clear rollback plan are available. On-site coordination may be considered where local testing, cabling, WAN handoff verification or wider network changes are part of the work. No fixed visit schedule or completion time should be assumed until the environment is reviewed.
Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Ajman coverage
Businesses in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Ajman can discuss FortiGate traffic shaping assessment, configuration planning, troubleshooting and related firewall work with FourTeck. The useful starting point is the same across locations: provide the FortiGate model, FortiOS release, WAN topology, circuit speeds, affected applications, site count and preferred change window. Delivery of the technical service can then be coordinated according to access requirements and project scope. If the requirement forms part of a new branch, firewall replacement, ISP migration or SD-WAN project, include those dependencies in the quotation request so the shaping design is aligned with the wider network change rather than configured in isolation.
GCC Availability
FourTeck can discuss FortiGate traffic shaping requirements for organisations coordinating network projects across the GCC, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Multi-country work should begin with a consistent service definition but not with identical bandwidth numbers. Each branch can have a different ISP service, latency profile, backup link, FortiGate model, FortiOS release and application mix, so the shaping design may need site-specific values even when policy names and business classes are standardised.
Requirement review can cover the desired traffic classes, configuration approach, remote access method, testing, documentation and regional coordination. Where equipment, licenses or a firewall refresh are also required, model and licensing availability should be checked separately. Product availability, licensing, delivery schedules, service visits, project scope and vendor lead times can vary by country, model, quantity and requirement. Buyers should provide the destination country, device details, number of sites, expected change window and any installation or support expectations so FourTeck can prepare appropriate guidance. For Kuwait-linked projects, customers may also review FourTeck Kuwait for regional coordination context.
Africa Availability
Organisations with African branches can also discuss FortiGate traffic shaping planning with FourTeck where the requirement involves bandwidth-constrained sites, mixed WAN technologies, guest access, cloud applications or centralised policy standards. In these environments, the most important design input is often the real link behaviour at each location. A fibre-connected headquarters and a remote branch using wireless, broadband or satellite connectivity should not be expected to use the same shaping values merely because both sites use FortiGate.
FourTeck can help review device details, application priorities, license or software dependencies, support scope and change coordination for relevant projects. Availability and fulfilment may depend on destination, product model, quantity, license region, power or regulatory requirements, shipping arrangements, vendor lead time, installation scope and local project conditions. Buyers should share the destination country, exact requirement, site count, preferred deployment schedule and support expectations before a quotation is prepared. Regional enquiries can reference FourTeck Africa, FourTeck Kenya or FourTeck Uganda where appropriate.
What buyers usually need to understand before shaping bandwidth
A common question is whether FortiGate traffic shaping can “make the internet faster.” It cannot create bandwidth that the provider does not deliver. What it can do is influence how available capacity is used when demand exceeds that capacity. This distinction matters because a 200 Mbps link carrying only 40 Mbps does not normally benefit from a 200 Mbps shaper; there is no congestion to manage. If users are slow at that moment, the root cause may be DNS, packet loss, Wi-Fi, application latency, server load, inspection overhead or another network issue. Shaping becomes valuable when a real bottleneck is known and the business wants predictable behaviour at that bottleneck.
Bandwidth limit versus traffic priority
A maximum bandwidth setting answers “how much can this traffic use?” Priority answers “which traffic should be served first when resources are contested?” Those are different policy goals. Many networks need both concepts, but applying them without a clear objective can produce confusing results.
Aggregate limit versus fairness per user
An aggregate guest limit may still allow one user to take most of that pool. A per-IP limit can improve fairness, but only if each relevant endpoint is represented by a meaningful IP identity at the shaping point. NAT and shared devices can change that assumption.
Another frequent buying question is how to choose a number. The safest starting point is the real usable capacity of the constrained interface and the minimum service the business needs during peak periods. If an ISP sells a 500 Mbps circuit but testing repeatedly shows a lower usable rate, configuring policies around the nominal speed may not move the queue to a place the FortiGate can control effectively. The WAN should be measured under appropriate conditions, ideally outside known application bottlenecks, and the result documented. For asymmetric services, upload and download capacity may need separate consideration because a site can have abundant downstream bandwidth but a much smaller upstream path.
Buyers also ask whether application-based shaping is better than port-based rules. Application awareness can be useful when many services use common ports such as HTTPS, but identification depends on the inspection and application-control context. Port and address matching can be simpler and deterministic when the application has well-known endpoints and services. The right method depends on the traffic. A SaaS application that changes addresses, a private ERP server, an IP phone system and a backup appliance may all need different matching strategies.
Do not define the project only as “configure QoS.” A useful request identifies the business symptom, the protected applications, the traffic to restrict, the link speeds and the expected result. That makes quotations easier to compare because every provider is pricing the same objective rather than interpreting a vague label differently.
The relationship between shaping and SD-WAN is another area that deserves attention. SD-WAN can choose among links according to rules and measured health, while shaping controls how traffic uses constrained capacity. If a branch fails over from a large fibre circuit to a smaller secondary link, the traffic policy may need to behave differently. Business-critical traffic might need a greater relative share while backups, updates or guest access are reduced. Planning for this degraded mode can be more important than optimising normal operation, because that is when the organisation has the least bandwidth available.
Testing should also be part of the purchase decision. A configuration task is not complete merely because a policy object exists in the GUI. The customer should know how the rule will be validated. A test might include a controlled file transfer to verify a maximum rate, simultaneous flows from multiple users to confirm fairness, or voice and meeting traffic during a generated bulk transfer to check that interactive applications remain usable. The exact test must match the business goal. When possible, record the before-and-after observation and keep it with the configuration notes.
Finally, think about lifecycle. ISP upgrades, new SaaS platforms, office expansions, VPN changes and FortiOS upgrades can make an old shaping design inaccurate. A rule created for a 100 Mbps circuit may become unnecessary or counterproductive after an upgrade to 1 Gbps. Conversely, a new backup service can introduce congestion where none existed before. Treat bandwidth policy as part of network operations: document it, assign ownership, review it after major changes, and remove obsolete rules rather than leaving them indefinitely.
Decision questions that lead to a better configuration
Should we reserve bandwidth for voice or simply prioritise it?
That depends on the congestion pattern and the service objective. Priority influences scheduling when traffic competes, while guaranteed or reserved capacity concepts require careful sizing and supported configuration. Over-reserving bandwidth can make the remaining traffic unnecessarily constrained. Start with concurrent call volume, codec behaviour, existing WAN utilisation and the real bottleneck, then choose the simplest policy that meets the requirement.
Can one rule limit streaming for everyone?
It can be possible to apply an aggregate shaper to matching traffic, but the result depends on how streaming is identified and whether the business wants a shared ceiling or a per-user limit. Encrypted applications and changing service endpoints should be considered. A test with the actual applications is more useful than assuming a web category or port will match every stream.
Why does a shaper appear not to work?
Common causes include matching the wrong traffic, shaping the wrong direction or interface, using a value above the real bottleneck, policy ordering, an unexpected SD-WAN path, or testing a flow that is not classified as expected. Troubleshooting should follow the packet path and verify the rule match before changing bandwidth values repeatedly.
Do we need a FortiOS upgrade first?
Not automatically. The current release should first be identified and checked against the desired shaping feature, the firewall model and the organisation’s upgrade policy. An upgrade introduces its own change risk and should not be added to scope merely because another version has newer menu options. If an upgrade is required, it should be planned as a separate controlled activity.
What should we send for a useful quotation?
Provide the FortiGate model, FortiOS version, number of sites, WAN speeds, network diagram if available, current issue, applications to protect or restrict, SD-WAN or VPN details, preferred support method and maintenance window. Screenshots or exported policy details can help, but credentials should not be shared in an initial sales request.
How much traffic shaping is enough?
Use the smallest policy set that clearly expresses the business requirement. Too many overlapping shapers make later troubleshooting harder. A few well-named classes with documented reasons can be more maintainable than dozens of narrow rules created reactively. Expansion should follow measured need, not the assumption that more controls produce better performance.
Related FourTeck options
Fortinet firewall planning
Review firewall sizing, deployment role and security requirements when traffic shaping is part of a wider refresh.
Firewall services
Discuss installation, migration, policy work, VPN, troubleshooting or configuration assistance beyond bandwidth control.
Product selection
Browse relevant firewall products when the existing appliance may be undersized or due for replacement.
Requirement consultation
Use a consultation when the symptoms are unclear and the correct action may involve QoS, SD-WAN, ISP or broader network changes.
Why businesses contact FourTeck for this work
Traffic shaping is easy to describe in a sentence but can be difficult to implement well when the network has multiple WAN links, existing policy history, VPNs, cloud applications, guest networks and users with competing expectations. FourTeck’s role can be to turn those requirements into a defined change scope: what needs to be protected, what can be limited, where the bottleneck is, how traffic will be matched and how the result will be tested.
Businesses may also contact FourTeck when they need help deciding whether shaping is the right remedy at all. If investigation points instead to ISP loss, Wi-Fi contention, firewall resource limits, routing, application performance or an outdated design, the project scope can be adjusted rather than forcing a QoS change onto the wrong problem.
Quotation coordination can include remote assessment, configuration work, documentation, post-change checks and related FortiGate services as agreed. Customers can learn more about FourTeck through the FourTeck company page or send project details through the contact page.
Frequently asked questions
What is FortiGate Traffic Shaping Configuration used for?
It is used to control how available bandwidth is allocated among selected traffic. Depending on the design, this can include maximum limits, priorities, per-IP fairness, class-based treatment or other supported FortiOS shaping functions. The objective is usually to make application behaviour more predictable when a link is congested.
Does traffic shaping increase internet bandwidth?
No. It cannot create capacity beyond the available circuit. It manages how existing capacity is used when multiple flows compete. If the network is slow without congestion, another cause should be investigated.
What is the difference between a shared shaper and a per-IP shaper?
A shared shaper can control matching traffic as a collective pool, while a per-IP shaper can apply a bandwidth treatment to individual IPs. The right choice depends on whether the requirement is an aggregate limit or fairness among users or endpoints.
Can FortiGate prioritise VoIP and video meetings?
FortiGate can apply traffic-shaping and prioritisation controls to matching traffic. The design should confirm how the voice or meeting application is identified, the WAN bottleneck, concurrent usage and the existing policy structure before values are selected.
Does the configuration depend on the FortiOS version?
Yes. Available options, menu locations and some feature behaviour can vary by FortiOS release and hardware platform. The current device version should be checked before preparing a configuration plan.
Can traffic shaping work with FortiGate SD-WAN?
Yes, FortiOS supports traffic-shaping approaches used with SD-WAN, but the design must consider member bandwidth, service rules, failover paths and the version in use. A policy should be tested in both normal and failover states where relevant.
What information is needed for a configuration quote?
Provide the FortiGate model, FortiOS version, number of devices or sites, WAN speeds, affected applications, current symptoms, SD-WAN or VPN details, preferred support method and expected maintenance window. A topology diagram is helpful when available.
Can FourTeck configure an existing FortiGate remotely?
Remote configuration can be discussed when secure administrative access, device details, a suitable maintenance window and rollback arrangements are available. The final method depends on the environment and agreed scope.
How should traffic shaping be tested after a change?
Testing should reflect the original business requirement. This may include verifying a maximum transfer rate, checking fairness across several clients, generating controlled load while monitoring a priority application, and reviewing counters or logs. The test and acceptance criteria should be agreed before implementation.
Plan the policy around your actual WAN and applications
Share the FortiGate model, software version, WAN speeds, affected services and desired outcome. FourTeck can help define the configuration scope, identify dependencies and prepare a quotation for the required UAE support.