mikeabc27
asked on
Software verses hardware VPN
I have been trying to set up a test router to router VPN with Netgear DGN2200 at one end and a Netgear DG934G at the other, unfortunately, the latter is the first Netgear I have come across that doesn't support VPN.
I then tried connecting to a Netgear FVS318G, but as the two subnets were the same, and I only had remote connections to these, this didn't work.
If we get another DGN2200, or a couple of Ciscos, are we likely to see a noticable improvement in speed and stability on top of using a VPN application like GoodSync Connect, Hamachi or Teamviewer File transfer?
I've not tried GoodSync but frequently use the other 2 for small transfers, but they fall over when they hit a larger file.
Thanks for any ideas.
I then tried connecting to a Netgear FVS318G, but as the two subnets were the same, and I only had remote connections to these, this didn't work.
If we get another DGN2200, or a couple of Ciscos, are we likely to see a noticable improvement in speed and stability on top of using a VPN application like GoodSync Connect, Hamachi or Teamviewer File transfer?
I've not tried GoodSync but frequently use the other 2 for small transfers, but they fall over when they hit a larger file.
Thanks for any ideas.
ASKER
Thanks for subnet info - have a habit of keeping to a same one.
With the problem with transfers I presume the MTU settings on one or both m/cs is 1500 or close. What is the default and what would you recommend......and is there a pay back in reducing it?
With the problem with transfers I presume the MTU settings on one or both m/cs is 1500 or close. What is the default and what would you recommend......and is there a pay back in reducing it?
Yes routing depends on every subnet between client an host to be different.
As for MTU the default is 1500, however that is automatically adjusted, for example; PPPoA/PPPoE connection 1492, PPTP VPN 1430, L2TP 1460, and so on. However if you have network disconnects, especially when copy large files or in some case just opening any file, it is often due to too high an MTU for the connection. There are ping tests to determine the optimum MTU but they are not accurate due to packet overhead. The best bet is to lower it drastically to something like 1200. If there is improvement in the connection stability you know it is an MTU issue. You can then gradually increase and test as you do so. A higher MTU will give you slightly better performance. Ideally you want to lower the MTU value on the connecting client. The easiest way to do so is with the DrTCP tool.
http://www.dslreports.com/drtcp
As for MTU the default is 1500, however that is automatically adjusted, for example; PPPoA/PPPoE connection 1492, PPTP VPN 1430, L2TP 1460, and so on. However if you have network disconnects, especially when copy large files or in some case just opening any file, it is often due to too high an MTU for the connection. There are ping tests to determine the optimum MTU but they are not accurate due to packet overhead. The best bet is to lower it drastically to something like 1200. If there is improvement in the connection stability you know it is an MTU issue. You can then gradually increase and test as you do so. A higher MTU will give you slightly better performance. Ideally you want to lower the MTU value on the connecting client. The easiest way to do so is with the DrTCP tool.
http://www.dslreports.com/drtcp
ASKER
Thanks RobWill and any benefits, besides better security, of router to router?
Assuming you don't have MTU issues, which will affect any VPN, site-to-site (router-to-router) VPN's tend to be much more stable, and you can address routing more easily.
SOLUTION
membership
Create a free account to see this answer
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
Thanks Qlemo, I was not familiar with mturoute.exe , great looking tool.
--Rob
--Rob
ASKER
Thank you both, based on optimised settings and site to site VPN, we were looking at GoodSync Connect, Hamachi or Teamviewer File transfer. Anything better you would recommend to copy sizeable backups from A to B?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
Create a free account to see this answer
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
ASKER
Thank you both.
Rob, can you please append your thoughts on GoodSynch over a site to site VPN when you have had a chance to test it.
Thanks,
Mike
Rob, can you please append your thoughts on GoodSynch over a site to site VPN when you have had a chance to test it.
Thanks,
Mike
Will do. I had actually saved your previous link to do so already, but I can post here as well for those that follow.
Something to consider with GoodSync's VPN feature as well as Hamachi's is they involve a 3rd party. Both services have an outgoing connection to a 3rd party server that does the "handshaking" between clients. Some companies do not like involving a 3rd party for security reasons. There is no reason to distrust these companies, but they are in an ideal position to execute a "monkey in the middle" interception of data. Both companies originated overseas and Goodsync is still owned by overseas companies. A site-to-site VPN keeps you in control of all data transactions.
Something to consider with GoodSync's VPN feature as well as Hamachi's is they involve a 3rd party. Both services have an outgoing connection to a 3rd party server that does the "handshaking" between clients. Some companies do not like involving a 3rd party for security reasons. There is no reason to distrust these companies, but they are in an ideal position to execute a "monkey in the middle" interception of data. Both companies originated overseas and Goodsync is still owned by overseas companies. A site-to-site VPN keeps you in control of all data transactions.
Regardless of the make and model the local and remote subnets will have to be different.