Theo, The reason I sent it to everyone on the list was for the specific reason of the individual who asked the question. I could not find the original question through all my mail and I did not want him thinking it was ok to setup 3000 users on a residetntial dsl line thinking I had did it (smile). I appreciated your comments I was not trying to be a jerk sorry. > Well that is why I sent the e-mail just to you and not everyone on the > group. > > Not everyone has the 100m connection but there are quite a few who do. > Your explanation is a bit more clear now. When I saw 608 and 128 I > thought it had to be K even though it was a bit slow for DSL. But hey! > You never know when someone might ask you to configure 9600k point to > point connections now do you? He He He. > > I agree with your wanting 2 45m connections. In the States that would > be the best solutions. I am here in Tokyo and NTT is our provider. > I am not entirely too worried about losing the connection to the > Internet at this point. Our homepage is hosted elsewhere and all we > really need is e-mail here. Not too intensive huh? Just a simple > static route. I still don't know why we have a 100m commection. I > assume it is something with politics. When they told me our > connection speed the first thing I though was Quake 3 and UnReal > Tournament. > > Theo > > > > > > > > "Elijah Savage" > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 06/06/2002 05:08 AM > Please respond to "Elijah Savage" > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: Re: VPN Overhead [7:45719] > > > You have totally misunderstood what I was saying, and it was in my > original email I hope no one else took it this way and just think I am > a total idiot. My company where the vpn concentrators are located has 2 > ds3's to the internet, that is 45mb on each ds3 with a total 90mb to > the net. What we used for testing the client piece was a dsl connection > and a cable connection and dialup I hope this clears things up for you. > I do not know where you are located but even in this day and age > bandwidth is still extremely expensive and a 100m conection wow you > make it seem as if everyone has this type of connection where you are. > And I would rather have 2 45mb connections than one 100mb anyday, > reason redundancy and a tad bit of load balancing tho not true load > balancing with bgp. We get full routes from both providers which are 2 > different tier1 providers Sprint and UUnet and we distribute the > default route from both into our IGP. This is great for when you have a > farmer doing some digging and happens to cut through UUnet's pipe which > happens to be carrying about 128 ds'3 that can't get put back together > until about 7 hours later. :) > Sorry for the confusion > > >> That is amazing. I would never have constructed a VPN infrastructure >> with 3000 users and 128k. >> >> In my office, we have a 100m pipe and this is not unusual given the >> area. When I was working at Worldcom, we were designing a massive >> Metro network infrastructure upgrade for the financial district of >> Tokyo. That was back in 2000. I left Worldcom, before the burst >> mind you, and now in this same area, most companies have 100m >> connections to the Internet. Home DSL is 30m or in my area only 8m >> with a >> dependable 3.5m connection. >> >> Not bad for living next to rice paddies I think. >> >> If I had 3000 users, I would have recommended a 1.5 line to the >> Internet at least. I was troubleshooting a VPN 5008 problem last >> year with 1000 users between New Zealand, Singapore, and Tokyo and >> that company had upgraded from 128 to 1.5 and said the performance >> was just so much better. >> That was for an office of only 50 people local to Tokyo. >> >> Thanks for your info. I will try to implement it in my designs. >> >> Theodore Stout, CISSP >> Senior Security Consultant >> CCNP, CCDP, CSS1, CCSE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Elijah Savage" >> 06/04/2002 08:02 PM >> Please respond to esavage >> >> >> To: >> cc: , , >> Subject: Re: VPN Overhead >> [7:45719] >> >> >> The bandwidth of the dsl that the telco generously loaned us for 60 >> days was 608 down 128 up, that is another thing if you have a good >> working relation with your local telco ask them to get you a circuit >> for testing and they will probably do it. >>> What is the bandwidth of you DSL? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Elijah Savage" >>> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> 06/04/2002 11:47 AM >>> Please respond to "Elijah Savage" >>> >>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> cc: >>> Subject: Re: VPN Overhead [7:45719] >>> >>> >>> We have 2 3030 concentrators setup in a load balancing fashion and it >>> works very well. We have rolled this out to about 3000 users and have >>> done all types of testing with different applications and different >>> types of access. Over dialup we notice that there is about 12% >>> overhead with the cisco vpn client, with broadband it makes less of >>> an impact. We noticed on broadband that it was about 7% on dsl and >>> about 5% on cable access. Hope that helps out. >>>> We are currently using a VPN provider to get into the network but >>>> want to take more control and bring it in house. I did some testing >>>> though and found that the VPN was adding about 27% overhead compared >>>> to bypassing VPN and going direct to a server. >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if others have done testing and what were your >>>> results. We are currently using V-One but I will be looking at >>>> Cisco's >>>> solution. Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45923&t=45719 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
