Re: Last-resort tunnel recommendations on WAN network ...
Raymond Burkholder via NANOG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026-03-17 08:42, Bryan Holloway via NANOG wrote: > Thank you to everyone who offered up suggestions. > > To summarize, I agree that a UNIX VM is the most flexible solution, > but we have concerns about supporting it. Router-jocks won't know how > to troubleshoot if the guy who put it together gets hit by a bus. Automating the deployment and keeping configs in version control is one way to surface all the configuration aspects of a linux server. Commits with comments adds colour as changes progress. After having stuff like this in use for a while, the Director actually made a public statement that the org was so much more efficient and effective in service delivery. He turned it into a selling point. > > Yes, Wireguard is hands-down easier to implement than IPsec!! I love > it. I use it on my home networks, and it was trivial to set up. If > only there were more appliances that used it out of the box. This > would be my ideal solution. > > And yes -- MikroTik supports Wireguard, but in our experience, > Mikrotik's VRF implementation isn't ready for prime-time. Linux VRF is. Plus EBGP and VxLAN and MPBGP and EVPN. > > Thanks again to everyone that chimed in. Very much appreciated! > > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/YR3ZJGDT3X6WVHEAXF3R6T2HDOJOVTOI/