Re: FW: VPN
"Scott C. Best" <[email protected]> Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:44:01 +0000 (GMT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.vpn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Darren: Heya. I agree of course that any networking application which connects users via an echoWare approach can equivalently be connected via a VPN approach (like OpenVPN or even Hamachi). And I also agree that for most large organizations with remote-users, a VPN solution is a basic necessity. But I would disagree that makes a VPN solution preferable for all networking applications. For example, with a VPN, a user-to-user connection is at least a two step process: you first establish the VPN connection, then run an application on top of the connection. If something goes wrong, is it a VPN problem (eg, MTU setting), an application problem, or pilot error? For IT professionals, debugging this is everyday life; for the average Internet user (ie, someone who knows their email address, but not their IP address), it's black-magic. An application-specific solution can be more "point and click", which is valuable for simple, ad-hoc, user-to-user apps like remote-desktoping, soft-phone, or video-chatting. And depending on the target user of the application, and the available IT support staff for those users, that might be exactly what's needed. cheers, Scott <snip> >> Also, the echoServer is hardly "only for VNC" -- echoWare >> will work for any user-to-user application. We wrapped a GUI around >> echoWare and call it "EchoVNC", but the echoServer itself is good >> for any echoWare-enabled application. >> >> Hamachi's approach of creating a virtual interface on >> both sides of the connection is an interesting one -- as you say, >> it solves for all layer-3 connections all at once, rather than >> echoWare's per-application approach. Maybe I should spend the >> time to create an EchoVPN product, based on echoWare. :) > > I'm wondering how solutions like these offer benefit over the tradional VPN > approach. Assuming a dispreference for IPsec due to its complexity, what > about something much lighter weight such as OpenVPN? Per above named points: > > 1. You (the company/administrator/IT staff) run and administer your OpenVPN > server. > > 2. Assuming you also control your own firewall, you can simply allow > connections through for the single port number or range of ports you use for > OpenVPN. > > 3. OpenVPN is of course Open Source too. > > To boot, use of this kind of VPN solution provides transparent access to the > LAN or portions thereof as determined by your intentions, making > authenticated/connected clients virtually an extension of the LAN; no > per-application bit about it.