General discussion

Locked

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

By gavin ·
My client has a tiered T1 line at their head office.

They have three satellite offices in different cities, with approx. 4
computers at each office, and each office has either a 128KBPS ISDN line, or
a cable modem.

I want each office to be able to access the head office exchange server
through outlook, save and open files on the head office server, and access a
Citrix Winframe server at head office.

Will adding a Win 2000 member server set up as a PPTP server provide a good VPN in order to have each client access the resources listed above, or is it
not a stable / fast enough solution?

Thanks in advance for ALL advice,

Gavin

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by rkelly In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...

From personal experience Windows 2000 is
a. Fast enough
b. stable enough

for your solution.

What you should be asking your self is, "Is it secure enough." Without some form of firewalling product I would be very doubious about opening the PPTP sessions for this network design.

Microsoft are just in the final throws of producing their latest firewalling product (ISA Server) which has recieved rave reviews in the IT Press - I Beta tested the product myself and was very impressed both with the functionality and the security features). Implementing Win2K with some form of decent firewall would be a more than adequate solution for your problem.

Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by gavin In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...

Poster rated this answer

Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by McKayTech In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...

It's a viable solution but I have security concerns as well as cost concerns. If this server will just be handling the VPN, I think a dedicated hardware option makes more sense for either a lot less or about the same price as the hardware plus software for a W2K server. W2K Advanced Server is, in my experience, the most stable product Microsoft has shipped in many, many years. However, it is a very complex product and that brings some disadvantages for a single-purpose dedicated VPN box.

In the lot less category, a Linux-based VPN router running SSH (secure shell) can be put together for a couple hundred dollars (that's what I use for the home->office connection). On the desktop, you can use any one of several SSH clients to anchor that end of the tunnel - I use TeraTerm Pro with the SSH extensions.

Alternately, there are commercial hardware products from Cisco, Intel and others that support VPN starting from about $2k.

Unless you need other services that a W2K server can provide, I would encourage you to consider these other options.

regards!

paul

Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by gavin In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...
Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by caleb_cooper In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...

I would agree with paul (answer2) but I would go further. The cisco solution would require a 3000 concentrator and a very good knowledge of the cisco IOS and IPsec. If you dont have these skill getting a consultant can be costly (let me know if you need one). I would recommend the sonicwall solution it uses a web based GUI and is relatively idiot proof. it is very cheap making it a very viable option.

Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by gavin In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...

Poster rated this answer

Collapse -

Is W2K Server a viable VPN Server?

by gavin In reply to Is W2K Server a viable VP ...

This question was closed by the author

Back to Windows Forum
7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums