ISA Better then 2000 VPN connection?

Hello,

Recently on our Windows 2000 server i setup an allowed VPN connection
to the serrver for users when they are external. everything seemed ok,
but it seemed like something was really causing the connectyion to be
slow and at some points unuseable. The connection is pretty close to
T1 speed.

I'm wondering if the native 2000 VPN connector is where the problem is
at or if upgrading to Windows 2003 and installing ISA will show a huge
improvement. We are considering a Cisco 506e PIX, but wondering if we
really need such a device. We dont really need site to site VPN
abilities and the VPN usage isnt needed on a persistent basis.

So the question is, will we see better performance using ISA and its
VPN tunnel abilities or should we just spring for the Cisco 506e
(cisco guys need not answer) :-)

Thanks in advance ..

GNY

I don't think that you would see much difference. VPN is slow! No matter
what you do at your end, the client is probably on a slow Internet
connection. If it is ADSL it runs at the lower "upload" speed (because every
packet is an upload to one end ot the other). A slow Internet connection
plus the encryption/encapsulation overhead means low throughput.

What are the remote clients doing? If they are trying to use a database
app, terminal services would speed things up. The client and server apps
would then both be on the highspeed LAN and only thre KVM data using the VPN
link.

"GNY" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hello,
>
> Recently on our Windows 2000 server i setup an allowed VPN connection
> to the serrver for users when they are external. everything seemed ok,
> but it seemed like something was really causing the connectyion to be
> slow and at some points unuseable. The connection is pretty close to
> T1 speed.
>
> I'm wondering if the native 2000 VPN connector is where the problem is
> at or if upgrading to Windows 2003 and installing ISA will show a huge
> improvement. We are considering a Cisco 506e PIX, but wondering if we
> really need such a device. We dont really need site to site VPN
> abilities and the VPN usage isnt needed on a persistent basis.
>
> So the question is, will we see better performance using ISA and its
> VPN tunnel abilities or should we just spring for the Cisco 506e
> (cisco guys need not answer) :-)
>
> Thanks in advance ..
>
> GNY
>

hi,
ISA is ussing RRAS native for VPN and of course will have other benefits,
but will use RRAS.
--
Dragos CAMARA
MCSA Windows 2003 server


"GNY" wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Recently on our Windows 2000 server i setup an allowed VPN connection
> to the serrver for users when they are external. everything seemed ok,
> but it seemed like something was really causing the connectyion to be
> slow and at some points unuseable. The connection is pretty close to
> T1 speed.
>
> I'm wondering if the native 2000 VPN connector is where the problem is
> at or if upgrading to Windows 2003 and installing ISA will show a huge
> improvement. We are considering a Cisco 506e PIX, but wondering if we
> really need such a device. We dont really need site to site VPN
> abilities and the VPN usage isnt needed on a persistent basis.
>
> So the question is, will we see better performance using ISA and its
> VPN tunnel abilities or should we just spring for the Cisco 506e
> (cisco guys need not answer) :-)
>
> Thanks in advance ..
>
> GNY
>
>

Thanks for the replies ..

Ok .. so we wont see any difference .. Yes it is ADSL .. and they are
basically trying to synchronize files. Changes made to files ..

I guess a VPN PIX box would ultimately be the only and best
solution ..

Thanks again ..

GNY

On Feb 24, 2:03 am, Dragos CAMARA <drago...@remove-this.hotmail.com>
wrote:
> hi,
> ISA is ussing RRAS native for VPN and of course will have other benefits,
> but will use RRAS.
> --
> Dragos CAMARA
> MCSA Windows 2003 server
>
> "GNY" wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > Recently on our Windows 2000 server i setup an allowed VPN connection
> > to the serrver for users when they are external. everything seemed ok,
> > but it seemed like something was really causing the connectyion to be
> > slow and at some points unuseable. The connection is pretty close to
> > T1 speed.

>
> > I'm wondering if the native 2000 VPN connector is where the problem is
> > at or if upgrading to Windows 2003 and installing ISA will show a huge
> > improvement. We are considering a Cisco 506e PIX, but wondering if we
> > really need such a device. We dont really need site to site VPN
> > abilities and the VPN usage isnt needed on a persistent basis.
>
> > So the question is, will we see better performance using ISA and its
> > VPN tunnel abilities or should we just spring for the Cisco 506e
> > (cisco guys need not answer) :-)
>
> > Thanks in advance ..
>
> > GNY

Don't count on that being much faster either. If the client is on a slow
link, changing things at the server end won't make much difference.

"GNY" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Thanks for the replies ..
>
> Ok .. so we wont see any difference .. Yes it is ADSL .. and they are
> basically trying to synchronize files. Changes made to files ..
>
> I guess a VPN PIX box would ultimately be the only and best
> solution ..
>
> Thanks again ..
>
> GNY
>
> On Feb 24, 2:03 am, Dragos CAMARA <drago...@remove-this.hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> hi,
>> ISA is ussing RRAS native for VPN and of course will have other benefits,
>> but will use RRAS.
>> --
>> Dragos CAMARA
>> MCSA Windows 2003 server
>>
>> "GNY" wrote:
>> > Hello,
>>
>> > Recently on our Windows 2000 server i setup an allowed VPN connection
>> > to the serrver for users when they are external. everything seemed ok,
>> > but it seemed like something was really causing the connectyion to be
>> > slow and at some points unuseable. The connection is pretty close to
>> > T1 speed.
>
>>
>> > I'm wondering if the native 2000 VPN connector is where the problem is
>> > at or if upgrading to Windows 2003 and installing ISA will show a huge
>> > improvement. We are considering a Cisco 506e PIX, but wondering if we
>> > really need such a device. We dont really need site to site VPN
>> > abilities and the VPN usage isnt needed on a persistent basis.
>>
>> > So the question is, will we see better performance using ISA and its
>> > VPN tunnel abilities or should we just spring for the Cisco 506e
>> > (cisco guys need not answer) :-)
>>
>> > Thanks in advance ..
>>
>> > GNY
>
>