[Repost] Windows Server 2003 RRAS Edition?

Some days ago I posted a message in microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing,
but no one answered it, so I'm trying reposting it to more appropriate
newsgroups.
I was stating how I find a Windows 2003 box to be a very feasible solution
for the routing/remote access/VPN/firewall needs of a small to medium-sized
company, but the full license fee of a Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition
makes this solution a lot more expensive than a Linux-based software router,
or even many hardware-based ones. My idea is that, since a RRAS server
normally doesn't need all of the features of Windows Server 2003, I think
Microsoft should sell a RRAS Edition of this OS, just like they sell a Web
Server Edition; this RRAS Edition should contain only the base OS and the
RRAS service (and maybe also basic networking services like DHCP and DNS),
and have a significantly lower cost than the full version; this way, a
Windows 2003-based router would become economically competitive.
I'm interested in knowing why Microsoft didn't release such an edition of
Windows 2003, and if they thought about this idea and rejected it (and why),
or if they didn't even think about it; also, I'm offering this as a
suggestion, hoping Microsoft will at least consider it.
Can someone (especially from MSFT) please answer these questions?

Thanks


Massimo

Have you tried sending an email to (E-Mail Removed)?

I usually go with www.sonicwall.com - I don't think Windows makes a great
router. The VPN solution for the sonicwalls is quite nice, easy to set up &
control.

Massimo wrote:
> Some days ago I posted a message in
> microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing, but no one answered it, so I'm
> trying reposting it to more appropriate newsgroups.
> I was stating how I find a Windows 2003 box to be a very feasible
> solution for the routing/remote access/VPN/firewall needs of a small
> to medium-sized company, but the full license fee of a Windows Server
> 2003 Standard Edition makes this solution a lot more expensive than a
> Linux-based software router, or even many hardware-based ones. My
> idea is that, since a RRAS server normally doesn't need all of the
> features of Windows Server 2003, I think Microsoft should sell a RRAS
> Edition of this OS, just like they sell a Web Server Edition; this
> RRAS Edition should contain only the base OS and the RRAS service
> (and maybe also basic networking services like DHCP and DNS), and
> have a significantly lower cost than the full version; this way, a
> Windows 2003-based router would become economically competitive. I'm
> interested in knowing why Microsoft didn't release such an edition of
> Windows 2003, and if they thought about this idea and rejected it
> (and why), or if they didn't even think about it; also, I'm offering
> this as a suggestion, hoping Microsoft will at least consider it. Can
> someone (especially from MSFT) please answer these questions?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Massimo

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<(E-Mail Removed) ahoo.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:uafv$(E-Mail Removed)

> Have you tried sending an email to (E-Mail Removed)?

No, never heard about that address before... thanks for the tip.

> I usually go with www.sonicwall.com - I don't think Windows makes a great
> router. The VPN solution for the sonicwalls is quite nice, easy to set up
> & control.

Well, I think it's main strength is the perfect integration in a Windows
domain (for authentication, permissions, policies, etc.); something that's
difficult to achieve for third-party routers. Of course, I acknowledge that
dedicated solution are a better choice for high-end applications, but, as I
said, I think Windows's RRAS can be a really good (and easy to setup) choice
for lots of situations.

Massimo

Massimo wrote:
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <(E-Mail Removed) ahoo.com> ha
> scritto nel messaggio news:uafv$(E-Mail Removed)
>
>> Have you tried sending an email to (E-Mail Removed)?
>
> No, never heard about that address before... thanks for the tip.
>
>> I usually go with www.sonicwall.com - I don't think Windows makes a
>> great router. The VPN solution for the sonicwalls is quite nice,
>> easy to set up & control.
>
> Well, I think it's main strength is the perfect integration in a
> Windows domain (for authentication, permissions, policies, etc.);
> something that's difficult to achieve for third-party routers. Of
> course, I acknowledge that dedicated solution are a better choice for
> high-end applications, but, as I said, I think Windows's RRAS can be
> a really good (and easy to setup) choice for lots of situations.

True, but I personally prefer *not* to have that level of integration. With
the sonicwall or other 3rd party clients, they just enable the client
software, establish the tunnel, and then they can connect & pass through
their domain credentials for authentication - either via cached credentials
or in a login script, etc...just my preference.

>
> Massimo

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<(E-Mail Removed) ahoo.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:(E-Mail Removed)

>> Well, I think it's main strength is the perfect integration in a
>> Windows domain (for authentication, permissions, policies, etc.);
>> something that's difficult to achieve for third-party routers. Of
>> course, I acknowledge that dedicated solution are a better choice for
>> high-end applications, but, as I said, I think Windows's RRAS can be
>> a really good (and easy to setup) choice for lots of situations.
>
> True, but I personally prefer *not* to have that level of integration.
> With the sonicwall or other 3rd party clients, they just enable the client
> software, establish the tunnel, and then they can connect & pass through
> their domain credentials for authentication - either via cached
> credentials or in a login script, etc...just my preference.

I'm curious about this... why do you prefer less integration?

Massimo

Massimo wrote:
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <(E-Mail Removed) ahoo.com> ha
> scritto nel messaggio news:(E-Mail Removed)
>
>>> Well, I think it's main strength is the perfect integration in a
>>> Windows domain (for authentication, permissions, policies, etc.);
>>> something that's difficult to achieve for third-party routers. Of
>>> course, I acknowledge that dedicated solution are a better choice
>>> for high-end applications, but, as I said, I think Windows's RRAS
>>> can be a really good (and easy to setup) choice for lots of
>>> situations.
>>
>> True, but I personally prefer *not* to have that level of
>> integration. With the sonicwall or other 3rd party clients, they
>> just enable the client software, establish the tunnel, and then they
>> can connect & pass through their domain credentials for
>> authentication - either via cached credentials or in a login script,
>> etc...just my preference.
>
> I'm curious about this... why do you prefer less integration?

I suppose because I like to "head things off at the pass", as it were -
seems like less exposure to me to have a separate authentication process for
the VPN connection. Just my preference - and thus far I've been really happy
with Sonicwalls and their ilk for this.
>
> Massimo

"Massimo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Some days ago I posted a message in
> microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing, but no one answered it, so I'm
> trying reposting it to more appropriate newsgroups.
> I was stating how I find a Windows 2003 box to be a very feasible
> solution for the routing/remote access/VPN/firewall needs of a small to
> medium-sized company, but the full license fee of a Windows Server 2003
> Standard Edition makes this solution a lot more expensive than a
> Linux-based software router, or even many hardware-based ones. My idea
> is that, since a RRAS server normally doesn't need all of the features
> of Windows Server 2003, I think Microsoft should sell a RRAS Edition of
> this OS, just like they sell a Web Server Edition; this RRAS Edition
> should contain only the base OS and the RRAS service (and maybe also
> basic networking services like DHCP and DNS), and have a significantly
> lower cost than the full version; this way, a Windows 2003-based router
> would become economically competitive. I'm interested in knowing why
> Microsoft didn't release such an edition of Windows 2003, and if they
> thought about this idea and rejected it (and why), or if they didn't
> even think about it; also, I'm offering this as a suggestion, hoping
> Microsoft will at least consider it. Can someone (especially from MSFT)
> please answer these questions?

I've given your question some thought, and the best answer I have is that
the "RRAS" or dial-up communications server market is just too heavily
fragmented. That's why you don't see Microsoft going after it.

You've got people using it for dial-up access into work or ISPs, but you've
also got people using it for custom applications like real time reporting
or POS transactions. In many cases, you've got dedicated hardware to do
the job, like cisco or shiva. In other cases, you've got dedicated drivers
and software to handle the transactions. There is such a wide variety,
it's hard to take a shot at it.

For the lowest cost objective, you can't beat a linux box with a compatible
board and driver, so why try? For the integrated solutions, the customer
is better buying the RAS device along with the rest of their network gear,
and getting it covered under the same service contract. For the custom
solutions, you MIGHT have a chance, but only if the vendor is going to
certify their software under 2003. A lot of these custom apps still run
under NT 4.0! So in the end, Microsoft doesn't have much of a target here,
not from where I'm standing.

My prefered solution (believe it or not) would be 2003 (its all 2000 now)
and rras as you suggest. Why? A few reasons. Having an environment all
one OS would be best in my mind, so if I've got everything else on 2003,
I'd like RAS to be too. Also, having it a windows OS lets me make all of
my environment a single hardware platform, instead of some proprietary junk
that I can't replace or repair at a moment's notice. Also, using a
standard server hardware lets me use a standard RAS board, in this case
Digi T1 cards is what I have. Unfortunately, the version of Digi T1 cards
we have don't have vendor supported drivers for 2003. So the RAS boxes are
stuck on 2000. They might work on 2003, but the nature of the drivers, the
specific features that we use, and the customers needs are such that we
can't afford any downtime or risk finding out that they don't work. It
would take a significan't investment in testing another box before it would
even be considered.

So, a happy world with cheap 2003 rras servers would be nice, but in
practice it's not easy, and I suspect Microsoft hasn't given it much
attention as a result.