• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Point to Point Router Recommendation

E

Emperor Jashugan

Member
BACKGROUND
We have a small business with 3 locations across the country: California, Maryland, and New Jersey. We have SDSL in New Jersey. In Maryland and California we are not able to get DSL or cable, so are getting Point to Point T1 instead. There are about 5-10 computer users at each location. We plan to set up a VPN to connect all three locations. We also plan to setup a website at one of the locations.

We are looking for a router that has built-in hardware VPN & firewall. The current choice is a Cisco 1720. Is there another product we should get instead?

Thanks!
 
The 1720 is your most logical choice. You might step up to a 2600 - It has more horsepower for doing the VPN and encryption. It just depends on your throughput potential and what you plan to do with it.

Given that you can't get any of the less expensive options and are going full T1 in the two offices have you priced out the cost of a frame relay link instead of using a VPN? You'll likely be much happier in the long run and will have a far more stable network. It will likely not be too much more expensive for the two remote offices without DSL.

- G
 
No we haven't priced out the cost of a Frame Relay link, because we might switch down to DSL at the two remote locations if it becomes available. We plan to use the VPN so that we can combine and centralize a couple of our databases (finance and inventory managment). Occasionally we might need to transfer some office files over the internet, but that would be infrequent.

I've heard that Cisco products are difficult to set up, are there competitors that have equivalent products that are more accessible?
 
The only Cisco alternatives that come to mind are ODS and Juniper. There was another company I heard of a couple years ago, but I was so new I can't really remember them. I think it was Mayflower or Waysomething-or-other? Anyone know which company it is that I'm thinking of?
 
You might take a close look at your databases and see how they're going to work across a VPN - If it's MS Access (or anything besides SQL/Oracle/Sybase, etc.) and over 20 MB, you're probably not going to be very happy with performance.

Remember that you're ALSO going to have to buy a router at the office to use for VPN.

One alternative - Get cheaper routers (ie a 1600) at the remote sites and get a PIX 501 at each site. The routers will connect to the Internet and the PIXes will do the VPN. This separates your VPN from your router, always a good thing to do. Probably faster and cheaper, as well. You might also investigate SonicWall as an alternative to the PIX - Easier to setup but not as good of a rep as Cisco (But then who does?!?)

- G
 

Nutz, I've heard of Juniper, but not ODS. Do you know what specific low-end product or combination of products I should be looking for?

Garion, the databases we use are Peachtree for accounting and a Progress database for inventory management. I've never looked at the amount of bandwith that the Progress database requires. However since there are only two to three users working with the database at any given time I don't think that it should take up too much bandwith.
 
<Instructor mode on>

There's actually two kinds of databases in this world.. File based and client/server databases.

File-based databases are the most simple type and the most common in small business. With a file-based database, a client maps a drive to a server and actually opens up the file containing the database on that mapped drive. When you do a search, you actually have to read in the entire database index from the drive, search it, then return the results and retrieve the data. This means you've got a HUGE amount of data transferring across the network, as the PC is doing the grunt work of searching the database. MS Access is a great example of how this works. In general, if you HAVE to map a drive letter to run the app, this is what you've got.

Client/Server databases are far more efficient and work better on a WAN. With a file-based database, a user sends a specific query to a database server. The DB server then does the work to perform the search on the database on it's local hard drive. The only thing that it sends back are the results and the client doesn't have to do much work. MS SQL server and Oracle are good examples of a client/server database. If you don't have to map a drive letter to run the app, this is probably what you've got.

<Instructor mode off>

I know that Peachtree is a file-based database. You shoud look at your database size on the server and see how big it is. Your worst case for performance should be roughly the time it takes to transfer that entire database across your WAN, plus quite a bit of overhead - I usually factor in about 30% on a VPN, 10% on a regular frame relay network. If you've got a 1Mb/s DSL line, transferring a 1MB database (which is 8 Mb, since 1 byte = 8 bits) is 8 seconds. Assume the circuit is 50% utilized and you're at 16 seconds. Add your 30^ overhead and you're at 21 seconds. Be generous - Say 30 seconds for a 1 MB database. If you've got a 30MB DB (which is certainly not uncommon for Peachtree) you're looking at about a 900 second response, or 15 minutes.

Just do the math - How big is the Peachtree database? How many users sharing how much bandwidth?

What I'm getting at is that a VPN and a WAN is a considerable investment. Be very sure to know your requirements and your limitations up front and set the proper expecations for your management. Without that, they will probably expect the response time at the remote sites to match that on the same network as the server, obviusly not something that's possible.

One easy sell - Use a Windows 2000 server in multi-user Terminal Server mode. It's very fast for end users, easy on bandwidth (~40Kb/s per user) and will offer much snapper resposne time than running the app across the WAN. Spending $3K on hardware/software once is a lot cheaper than needing to spend an extra $500/month for higher bandwidth to your offices.

If all else fails.. Test!

- G

 
Hi,

Another vendor that I suggest you take a look at is Netopia. I used to work for an ISP and they are by far one of the best in terms of service and support I've ever worked with. They make modular routers that have swappable WAN cards (although the WAN cards are fairly expensive) like the CISCO ones. They have a ton of features so you should take a look at their website. The routers are also capable of doing router to router VPN, but you'll might need to purchase an additional VPN accelerator card if you pass a lot of traffic.

The router comes with a T1 interface card with integrated CSU/DSU and runs about $1000. I believe the 1720 is about $1000 plus another $1000 for the interface card w/ integrated CSU/DSU.

PM me if you're interested in one of these routers...I'm an IT professional and regularly work with Netopia equipment. Of course, you could probably get a Cisco or Netopia from eBay as well for a good price.
 
Garion...
Wow, thanks. Both our databases require us to map drives. I guess the benefits of setting up a VPN really diminish if the entire database is being sent to the client. I would still like to setup a VPN to centralize some of the administrative tools, and to allow some files, such as artwork, to be shared between the locations. But as you mentioned it doesn't make much sense to run the databases accross a VPN.

Right now we spend about $300 / month for a 56k dial up connection in California. About $20 a month goes to the ISP and about $280 goes to PacHell (local phone charges). We decided to go with 256k fractional T1 (although we can burst at 1.5 Mbs) at $500 / month.

I've heard a lot about Citrix server. How does the Windows Server terminal service compare to it?

Subflava...
I'll check Netopia's site and take a look at their products.
-- EDIT --
Their R5300 seems like it has everything we need (VPN, Firewall, Remote Config). Have you used this one? Can a network novice set it up?
 
I'm with Garion ur best option is Frame-Relay and Garion can correct me if I' m wrong but the cost for the frame-relay link is like the cost of ur dialup
access but with the bandwidth of the fractional T1.
 
Win2K Server acting in Terminal Server mode acts almost exactly a Citrix Winframe server, from a few years back. Citrix licenced their MultiWin technology to Microsoft, who started including it in builds of NT Servers in 4.0 days (NT 4.0 TSE had it).

Citrix has become an add-on pack to Microsoft servers. It adds encryption, better client support and a lot more flexible options. But, for pure function, Terminal Server works just fine. If you've got a 2K server you can experiment with it - You just have to enable for Remote Admin mode it and connect to it using their client.

Before you assume it won't work across the WAN, check your databases and see how big they are. Some apps are more efficient than others at using bandwidth. Not sure about Peachtree or Progress, however. Here's a test: Go in sometime when there's not many users. Set your machine down to 10Mb/s then login and run the bigest query you can think of on the two databases. Multiply the results by about 15 and that's the FASTEST you'd ever see going across a VPN. Really rough and might not be all too accurate, but might give you a sense of how it would perform.

- G
 
I've tested PeachTree Complete accounting on WindowsXP Remote Access ( Terminal Server ) over a dial-up. I have to say that it works really well. Printing on the " terminal " side *SUCKS* though. As long as the remote offices don't need to do much or any printing , you should be OK. BTW, PeachTree takes up about 250MB of HD space on our server.

 
Oh, and I'd guestimate a three-site frame relay at about $2K/month. You'd need to have Internet access somewhere, however - Probably the site with the DSL line for cost purposes. Sprint or MCI would be happy to talk to you about the frame.

- G
 
10-20 person office? running terminal services non stop?

256 Kbit frame relay = 500/mo including access, 128 K cir = 100/mo
256 Kbit frame relay = 500/mo including access, 128 K cir = 100/mo
512 Kbit frame relay = 750/mo including access, 256 K cir = 170/mo

total Frame&access = 1750. PVCs = 370. Well performing, non congested 1x2 hub/spoke frame network - priceless.

nice estimate GARION.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top