In a tutorial video, I saw that SSL-VPN through SonicWALL uses a web portal system to connect to VPN. EXAMPLE: Ping -f -l 1464 If the ping is successful (no packet loss) at 1464 payload size, the MTU should be '1464 (payload size) + 20 (IP Header) + 8 (ICMP Header. MTU Test in a VPN Environment experiencing throughput issues. If I go with SonicWALL, it seems that it would be better to use the SSL-VPN rather than the "normal" VPN option. NOTE: Add 28 to that number, and the result will be the value being set to SonicWall 'Interface MTU'. Is it "better" to use the VPN functionality built into SonicWALL or to use Windows "Routing and Remote Access Service"? By "better", I mean, are the two equivalent choices with one being a clearly superior option to the other? I'm pretty new to dealing with server configuration and firewall stuff, so I had a couple questions about this: While investigating how VPN had been configured for SVN, I found that we weren't using our SonicWall's VPN/SSLVPN - we were using our Windows Server 2008 machine's "Routing and Remote Access Service".
#Sonicwall netextender vpn how to
I wanted to expose a couple more resources via VPN (namely, we're revving up some internal Git repositories that we'll want to access through VPN), so I was exploring how to get that working.
#Sonicwall netextender vpn update
One of the last things he implemented before leaving was a VPN connection to our SVN repositories hosted inside the company firewall (so people could update and commit to SVN remotely). Until recently, the small company I work for (~10 people) has relied on an IT resource to manage our network infrastructure.
0 kommentar(er)
