Re: VPN recommendations?

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> (your license runs out, the box is a paper-weight)


Should be a hard no for anyone purchasing network equipment anyways, but
people have reasons I guess.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:19 PM Shawn L via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:

> Meraki MX series?
>
>
>
> I don't like the way they do their licensing (your license runs out, the
> box is a paper-weight) but they do really well at establishing site-to-site
> VPNs in some pretty challenging scenarios.  Dynamic IPs and NATs don't
> really cause them a problem.  Some CGNats do (AT&T I'm looking at you).
>
>
>
>
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Keith Stokes" <keiths () salonbiz com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 1:11pm
> To: "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us>
> Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: VPN recommendations?
>
> Pfsense on Netgate appliances?
> I’ve used several of them, while not for this exact purpose they have done
> the roles but maybe not the amount of VPN traffic.
>
> --
> Keith Stokes
> SalonBiz, Inc
>
> On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:02 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> Do you have any recommendations for VPN appliances? Specifically: I need
> to build a site to site VPNs at speeds between 100mpbs and 1 gbit where all
> but one of the sites are behind an IPv4 NAT gateway with dynamic public IP
> addresses.
> Normally I'd throw OpenVPN on a couple of Linux boxes and be happy but my
> customer insists on a network appliance. Site to site VPNs using IPSec and
> static IP addresses on the plaintext side are a dime a dozen but traversing
> NAT and dynamic IP addresses (and automatically re-establishing when the
> service goes out and comes back up with different addresses) is a hard
> requirement.
> Thanks in advance,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill () herrin us
> <https://bill.herrin.us/>
> https://bill.herrin.us/