Q about router VPN tunneling an IP routes

[KingGheedora]

We're setting up a new office away from our HQ, and we need everyone in our new location to be able to connect to the network in the main office.

We're getting a SonicWall TZ 210 router. Question about the VPN tunneling on this thing (or other similar devices, we can change the device if this won't work). When I VPN in from home I set up windows VPN client so that only the traffic for hosts on the work network get routed through the VPN connection. (disabled use remote gateway basically).

Will i be able to do something similar with the SonicWall router – set it so that if someone is browsing their gmail or some other random website, that traffic goes through our internet connection, but then any traffic for the IP range on the main office network gets sent through the VPN tunnel? I'd like something like that to be set up at the router level and not have to do any config to the PC's.

 

[aE0n]

That is how it will work after you set up the VPN between routers without any additional configuration.

 

[spidey07]

Sure. When you define the VPN tunnels you specify source and destiation networks for the tunnel. Any other traffic will follow the default route which would normally be the Internet.

 

[USAFdude02]

Split tunneling is nice. Avoids alot of un-needed bandwidth utilization, as you don't have the remote gateway...so you can send traffic out your internet connection.

This would be a good setup for a small/medium sized business.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Split tunneling is nice. Avoids alot of un-needed bandwidth utilization, as you don't have the remote gateway...so you can send traffic out your internet connection.

This would be a good setup for a small/medium sized business.

Be careful with that though, split tunnel cna be a security nightmare

 

[drebo]

We're getting a SonicWall TZ 210 router.

There's your first mistake.

 

[Ciber]

There's your first mistake.

What would you recommend instead, and why? I'm currently looking at one of these and it looks better than a Cisco ASA, at least on paper.

 

[KingGheedora]

There's your first mistake.

It'd be nice if you said why. But either way I just found out the IT at the main site will only support cisco routers.

 

[drebo]

It'd be nice if you said why. But either way I just found out the IT at the main site will only support cisco routers.

Good decision.

 

[drebo]

What would you recommend instead, and why? I'm currently looking at one of these and it looks better than a Cisco ASA, at least on paper.

SonicWalls are only "better" on paper because they cram in more useless features than Cisco does. Operationally, they are abysmal. Administratively, they're abominable. I would recommend staying far, far away from them. The Cisco ASA5505 is better in every possible way, and Cisco is a much better company to deal with than SonicWall.

Hell, most SonicWall appliances don't even support static NATs. They only do PATs (otherwise known as port forwards or I believe they call them "servers").

 

[KingGheedora]

Good decision.

shitty post

 

[drebo]

shitty post

If you say so. Years of experience, however, say otherwise. If you want something more middle of the road, look at Adtran's NetVanta routers.

 

[KingGheedora]

There's your first mistake.

What would you recommend instead, and why? I'm currently looking at one of these and it looks better than a Cisco ASA, at least on paper.

It'd be nice if you said why. But either way I just found out the IT at the main site will only support cisco routers.

Good decision.

shitty post

If you say so. Years of experience, however, say otherwise. If you want something more middle of the road, look at Adtran's NetVanta routers.

Was referring to the fact that you again posted recommendation without any info to back it up, after two people already asked you to provide more info. This helps those of us who don't know as much as you about this topic.

 

[drebo]

You could try actually READING all of my posts first. For you who are too incompetent:

SonicWalls are only "better" on paper because they cram in more useless features than Cisco does. Operationally, they are abysmal. Administratively, they're abominable. I would recommend staying far, far away from them. The Cisco ASA5505 is better in every possible way, and Cisco is a much better company to deal with than SonicWall.

Hell, most SonicWall appliances don't even support static NATs. They only do PATs (otherwise known as port forwards or I believe they call them "servers").

 

[KingGheedora]

You could try actually READING all of my posts first. For you who are too incompetent:

hahaha, i posted my replies as i was reading down the thread, so I responded to your "shitty post" before reading your explanation. (And I never noticed that the explanation was from you).