Ha Ha Ha,
You are a good guy. :-)
Theo
"Elijah Savage"
06/06/2002 07:45 PM
Please respond to esavage
To:
cc:
Subject: Re: VPN Overhead [7:45719]
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=45925&t=45719
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
