From: guerra440@gbronline.com
Thanks for the info!
Anyhow, my situation has changed a bit... we found a great deal on a used
DFL-200 and took it. Should be receiving it by next week.
So now the question is, what's the best way to set up the sites having a
DFL-200 at the main site... would it be DI-804HV's or NETDEFEND clients at
each site?? Or even plain old XP client at the remotes??? I kind of like the
idea of a hardware solution at each site to avoid using resources from the
remote PCs, at least to use as little as possible...
Can the DFL-200 allow a remote site to have a URL instead of IP?
Thanks
--
Jester
"ilwingsfan" wrote in message
news:1133441571.497846.113500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Jester - Just went through setting up VPN with DI-808HV (same as
> DI-804HV but 8 ports).
>
> As far as I know you cannot set up direct "Always On" VPN between the
> two sites where both have Dynamic IP...even using Dynamic DNS via
> dyndns.org,etc. You can setup PPTP server on DI-804HV and create a VPN
> tunnel from any Windows XP machine or by using software you could
> create the tunnel on other OS's.
>
> The setup on the DI-804HV requires an IP address for the other end -
> you cannot enter a URL.
>
> Took quite a lot of tinkering to solve my problems with the DI-808 -
> seems to be working OK now but rather slow. I'd like to hear how your
> project turns out.
>
>
>
> Jester wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Want to set up a VPN between a small peer-to-peer lan and two other
>> home
>> users. Two sites are on DSL, third is FiOS... all have dynamic IPs. I'm
>> quite familiar with D-Link products, so I'll be using these models for
>> reference, but feel free to suggest other options (but tell me why
>> please)... here are my brainstorming results...
>>
>> 1- Three inexpensive DI-804HVs... One at each site... using best security
>> available between them.
>>
>> PROS (As I perceive them):
>> - Possibly better security than using XP client??
>> - If any site expands, can just plug in additional PCs to to local lans
>> and
>> not bother with additional connections on PC. Not a big deal, but hey.
>> - Dial-up access to each site through modem plugged into DB9 port on
>> DI-804HV (Don't need it right now, but easily might in future)
>>
>> CONS:
>> - "Always on" VPN between sites. Greater possibility of attack??
>>
>> 2- One inexpensive DI-804HV at main site... XP client at each remote PC.
>> PROS:
>> - Least expensive option.
>> - When remote PCs are off, there's no tunnel active. Although I realize
>> the
>> router would be willing to "accept" a potential connection. So I don;t
>> knwo
>> if my "always on" fear is valid.
>> - Dial-up access to main site through DB9 port.
>> CONS:
>> - Limits me to PPTP.
>> - Any other security/performance concerns I might be missing.
>>
>> 3- One DFL-200 at main site, NETDEFEND client or DI_804HVs at remotes.
>> PROS:
>> - Faster VPN performance (supposedly) I know the "A" in ADSL will
>> affect
>> speed more than anything.
>> - Can use NETDEFEND client at remote sites for more robust security.
>> - Can manage bandwidth to each tunnel.
>> - Can also use XP client in a pinch.
>> - Also has DB9 port
>> CONS:
>> - A bit more money than I planned.
>>
>>
>> So basically, my main question is: What are the
>> advantages/disadvantages
>> of router-to-router vs. client-to-router setups??
>> Which of the above is best for simple file-sharing between sites? Each
>> site
>> has net access, each site has printers. We just need some very simple
>> 50-100k files accessed every now and then, and at worst, a 1-2mb PDF
>> might
>> have to be opened on occasion.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Jester
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
