NOVICE: "Wireless Solution to VPN?"

I work for a small nonprofit org with about 25 workstations total at 4
different sites connected to 1 server in a 1000 ft radius. We
contracted with a consulting company that advised us and configured us
to connect all 4 sites through VPN via DSL at each site. After
everything was in place, we discovered the upload speed (256K) was
insufficient to handle the data transfer to and from the server.

We had another consulting company that came in shortly thereafter that
advised us the first company should never have connected us with a DSL
VPN, that an internal wireless network would offset the equipment and
installation cost by eliminating the need for all of our DSL accounts
at all but one of the sites.

In the longterm, the wireless clearly makes the best sense. We figure
that in about 2-3 years, the cost of labor and equipment for wireless
would be less than continuing to pay for 3 additional DSL lines @
($80/month).

The problem is that the original consultants are trying to rectify the
problem by suggesting that we increase the bandwith from the server to
384K for an additional $80/month. The main reason they are doing
this, I believe, is so we will stay with their original design and
they wont have to reimburse us for their fees.

Even though this could possibly be a "solution" , I certainly dont
think its the best solution for the amount we could end up paying in
the long-term. The problem is compounded by the fact that my boss
doesnt want to scrap the money we spent on equipment and labor for the
VPN on DSL.

There's no doubt that with the information we have now, we'd have
never have gone the DSL route originally. The only two reasons I can
think of why we would continue to stay with it is because wireless
means someone has to eat the cost of the original bad decision.

That is, unless there are some costs/factors Im not considering that
would make wireless networking less attractive.

I'm a long way from being an expert, but here's my 2 cents worth
anyway...

Yes, the wireless solution would probably give you more bandwidth and
the VPN equipment should still be usable. VPN is far more secure than
WEP and probably more secure than WPA, as well. After all, most
commercial VPN solutions were designed with business in mind.

Many companies, like the one I work for, use VPN in conjunction with
wireless. Where I work, you can associate with the access point and get
a DHCP address, but there you stop. There is no internet access or
anything else until you fire up the VPN client and initiate a
connection, using a SecureID card. After that, it's just like any
normal LAN connection.

One caveat, though... You will probably need to use commercial-grade
wireless equipment. Some (most / all?) consumer-grade gear will only
support one VPN connection at a time.

Hope this helps.

Bob



"registered" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I work for a small nonprofit org with about 25 workstations total at 4
> different sites connected to 1 server in a 1000 ft radius. We
> contracted with a consulting company that advised us and configured us
> to connect all 4 sites through VPN via DSL at each site. After
> everything was in place, we discovered the upload speed (256K) was
> insufficient to handle the data transfer to and from the server.
>
> We had another consulting company that came in shortly thereafter that
> advised us the first company should never have connected us with a DSL
> VPN, that an internal wireless network would offset the equipment and
> installation cost by eliminating the need for all of our DSL accounts
> at all but one of the sites.
>
> In the longterm, the wireless clearly makes the best sense. We figure
> that in about 2-3 years, the cost of labor and equipment for wireless
> would be less than continuing to pay for 3 additional DSL lines @
> ($80/month).
>
> The problem is that the original consultants are trying to rectify the
> problem by suggesting that we increase the bandwith from the server to
> 384K for an additional $80/month. The main reason they are doing
> this, I believe, is so we will stay with their original design and
> they wont have to reimburse us for their fees.
>
> Even though this could possibly be a "solution" , I certainly dont
> think its the best solution for the amount we could end up paying in
> the long-term. The problem is compounded by the fact that my boss
> doesnt want to scrap the money we spent on equipment and labor for the
> VPN on DSL.
>
> There's no doubt that with the information we have now, we'd have
> never have gone the DSL route originally. The only two reasons I can
> think of why we would continue to stay with it is because wireless
> means someone has to eat the cost of the original bad decision.
>
> That is, unless there are some costs/factors Im not considering that
> would make wireless networking less attractive.

> One caveat, though... You will probably need to use commercial-grade
> wireless equipment. Some (most / all?) consumer-grade gear will only
> support one VPN connection at a time.

That's a bit meaningless as it stands Bob since VPN's are just passing
IP traffic and wireless AP's are just bridges.

I've got WAP11's supporting several VPN's, no reason why they shouldn't.

On the other hand, if you're talking about wireless routers where the
router part might terminate a VPN connection then yes that's a valid
point.

David.

Good point, David. I tend to think "wireless router" because that's all
I've dealt with, personally.

Of course you're right. The AP should be invisible to VPN or any other
network traffic.

One of the best things about this group is that even newbies like me can
contribute to the "brainstorming" process. If we make a mistake,
someone will set us straight.

Thanks,

Bob


"David Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > One caveat, though... You will probably need to use commercial-grade
> > wireless equipment. Some (most / all?) consumer-grade gear will
only
> > support one VPN connection at a time.
>
> That's a bit meaningless as it stands Bob since VPN's are just passing
> IP traffic and wireless AP's are just bridges.
>
> I've got WAP11's supporting several VPN's, no reason why they
shouldn't.
>
> On the other hand, if you're talking about wireless routers where the
> router part might terminate a VPN connection then yes that's a valid
> point.
>
> David.

> One of the best things about this group is that even newbies like me can
> contribute to the "brainstorming" process. If we make a mistake,
> someone will set us straight.

We're all here to make mistakes and learn from them!