(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/