It is based on known load for that number of tunnels. We have NetScreen 100 firewalls and NetScreen 500 firewalls in production. The model 100's tend to hover around 60% CPU with active 120 active t
thanks. I was looking for graphs of thoughput/latency for varying numbers of connnections, but this is a start. good to know. thanks. got 'em Joe -- Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina j
Let me help you. http://www.ivpn.net/pptp-vs-l2tp-vs-openvpn.php BTW. OpenVPN rocks. I think your problem was between the keyboard and the back of your chair. :) HTH Brent ___________________________
Author: Michael Schwartzkopff <misch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:24:32 +0200
Hi, I think you get the best throughput with OpenSWAN because IPsec uses symmetric ciphers like AES. A quite old performance estimation link is: http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-2.06/
We're using OpenVPN for our client-to-server tunnels. For these connections it's quite easy to set up (sorry, Joe :p). By default it allows for 1024 simultaneous connections so that should at least s
probably no-one has the stamina to setup more than one of the Linux VPNs. How long does it take to setup a Juniper VPN firewall from scratch, if you're a regular competent sysadmin, but have never se
It was OpenVPN I tried. I can't find any more about its performance than I can for any of the other Linux VPNs. Why hasn't someone done a side-by-side shoot off of all the Linux VPNs? Joe -- Joseph M
close enough and it's an interesting problem presumably your estimate is based on the known load for a given (smaller) number of tunnels? You'd need good nics with offload etc. as for this project, d
This is admittedly off topic, but it also seems like a good place to ask the question. We currently have a bunch of Juniper firewalls to handle our VPN tunnels. We are pretty happy with them, but the