Software VPN vs Hardware VPN Efficiency

Software VPN vs Hardware VPN Efficiency
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.vpn  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Software VPN vs Hardware VPN Efficiency asdf 04-21-2006
Posted by asdf on April 21, 2006, 9:32 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
What are everyone's opinions on running VPN on Server 2003 vs running it
on a dedicated VPN hardware--like a VPN endpoint router.

We have about 5 people who will be connecting to our network at the same
time
mostly transferring large images.

Sales guys claim that hardware will provide us with better throughput as
opposed
to running VPN on a server.

thanx



Network Magic Graduation 20% off animated banner
Posted by Robert L [MS-MVP] on April 21, 2006, 11:33 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
: quoted-printable

It depends on what you will buy. If it is Cisco router/firewall, I would =
use it. Windows server may give you more features such as name =
resolution, policy.

Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on =
http://www.ChicagoTech.net=20
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on =
http://www.HowToNetworking.com=20
What are everyone's opinions on running VPN on Server 2003 vs running =
it
on a dedicated VPN hardware--like a VPN endpoint router.

We have about 5 people who will be connecting to our network at the =
same
time
mostly transferring large images.

Sales guys claim that hardware will provide us with better throughput =
as
opposed
to running VPN on a server.

thanx


------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C66593.966E3280
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>It depends on what you will buy. If it is Cisco=20
router/firewall, I would use it. Windows server may give you more =
features such=20
as name resolution, policy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE &amp; CNE<BR>Networking, Internet, =
Routing, VPN=20
Troubleshooting on <A=20
href=3D"http://www.ChicagoTech.net">http://www.ChicagoTech.net</A> =
<BR>How to=20
Setup Windows, Network, VPN &amp; Remote Access on <A=20
href=3D"http://www.HowToNetworking.com">http://www.HowToNetworking.com</A=
> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
actJFdTZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com</A>...</DIV>What=20
are everyone's opinions on running VPN on Server 2003 vs running =
it<BR>on a=20
dedicated VPN hardware--like a VPN endpoint router.<BR><BR>We have =
about 5=20
people who will be connecting to our network at the =
same<BR>time<BR>mostly=20
transferring&nbsp; large images.<BR><BR>Sales guys claim that hardware =
will=20
provide us with better throughput as<BR>opposed<BR>to running VPN on a =

server.<BR><BR>thanx<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=
Posted by Simon on April 22, 2006, 5:17 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
asdf wrote:
> What are everyone's opinions on running VPN on Server 2003 vs running it
> on a dedicated VPN hardware--like a VPN endpoint router.
>
> We have about 5 people who will be connecting to our network at the same
> time
> mostly transferring large images.
>
> Sales guys claim that hardware will provide us with better throughput as
> opposed
> to running VPN on a server.
>
> thanx
>
>
I run windows server with 100 concurrent vpn clients connected and there
are no performance problems, this was using pptp not l2tp/ipsec though.
For lan to lan tunnels I would always go hardware vpn though.
simon

Posted by asdf on April 22, 2006, 9:14 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
thank you both for replying. there is something else i forgot to mention
though.

WE are using DLS and things get kind of slow. If we get a network balancing,
end point router
and get another dsl connection we would still be able to connect with VPN
using both connections.
MAybe it's the word tunnel in "VPN tunnel" that's messing me up. But that
tunnel can split and go
over 2 separate connection?

thank you very much for replying.
> asdf wrote:
> > What are everyone's opinions on running VPN on Server 2003 vs running it
> > on a dedicated VPN hardware--like a VPN endpoint router.
> >
> > We have about 5 people who will be connecting to our network at the same
> > time
> > mostly transferring large images.
> >
> > Sales guys claim that hardware will provide us with better throughput as
> > opposed
> > to running VPN on a server.
> >
> > thanx
> >
> >
> I run windows server with 100 concurrent vpn clients connected and there
> are no performance problems, this was using pptp not l2tp/ipsec though.
> For lan to lan tunnels I would always go hardware vpn though.
> simon



Posted by Bill Grant on April 22, 2006, 7:52 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I would get some expert advice brfore trying to combine two DSL
connections. It can't be done easily. The problem is that "dialup" style VPN
traffic needs to use the default gateway, and there can only be one of
those!

asdf wrote:
> thank you both for replying. there is something else i forgot to
> mention though.
>
> WE are using DLS and things get kind of slow. If we get a network
> balancing, end point router
> and get another dsl connection we would still be able to connect with
> VPN using both connections.
> MAybe it's the word tunnel in "VPN tunnel" that's messing me up. But
> that tunnel can split and go
> over 2 separate connection?
>
> thank you very much for replying.
>> asdf wrote:
>>> What are everyone's opinions on running VPN on Server 2003 vs
>>> running it on a dedicated VPN hardware--like a VPN endpoint router.
>>>
>>> We have about 5 people who will be connecting to our network at the
>>> same time
>>> mostly transferring large images.
>>>
>>> Sales guys claim that hardware will provide us with better
>>> throughput as opposed
>>> to running VPN on a server.
>>>
>>> thanx
>>>
>>>
>> I run windows server with 100 concurrent vpn clients connected and
>> there are no performance problems, this was using pptp not
>> l2tp/ipsec though. For lan to lan tunnels I would always go hardware
>> vpn though.
>> simon



Similar ThreadsPosted
Hardware or software client? Pros and Cons? December 5, 2005, 11:51 pm
Debug a Software ported in a Hardware Board that is 2000 km away from our location. April 10, 2006, 5:55 am
Looking for hardware VPN solution October 24, 2006, 12:32 am
vpn hardware solution September 10, 2008, 9:36 am
Cheap VPN Client Hardware May 18, 2006, 5:57 pm
Writing software for VPN February 25, 2006, 6:10 am
In need of Netscreen Remote VPN client software February 28, 2005, 4:33 pm
VPN: Which linux software to connect Zywall June 26, 2005, 4:25 pm
Why would I need to purchase IPSec client software? May 12, 2005, 1:34 pm
software that helps resolve vpn problems? July 29, 2008, 3:54 pm

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map