• 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.

What's the Most Common VPN Topology

MrControversial

Senior member
I'm in the planning stages for a VPN connecting three small sites (about four PC's each). I'm reading the manual for the Netgear Firewall that I will be using and it only has an example for connecting two VPNs. It's an A --> B configuration where LAN A tunnels to LAN B. However, how should I do a third, LAN C? If I do A --> B and C --> B will LAN's A and C be able to communicate? It's a logical star topology so it seems as if it should work.

The alternative is to tunnel A --> B, A --> C, and B --> C, creating a logical ring. Obviously that's added complexity if we add more sites. Which route should I go?
 
Are you doing this because there is a host site with a server everyone is accessing? If so do a star topology, 1 vpn tunnel to the host site from the 2 remote sites. Otherwise if you just want everyone to be able to access one another create 2 vpn tunnels from each site to the other sites (full mesh). Oh and use Cisco routers 😛
 
The most common is a star topology - aka: wagon wheel, or hub-and-spoke.

Basically its A -> B, A -> C, A -> D, A -> E, etc.

Whether or not B, C, D, and E will be able to communicate with each other will depend on your VPN equipment. I have no idea about the netgear stuff, but I'd guess and say that low-end equipment wont support that kind of feature.
 
Well, the Firewalls we currently use are old 3COM Office Connect 25's which use a star topology to connect to a 3COM SuperStack at our main site. However, each firewall allows us to connect to destination networks. So although each site connects to a "hub" so to speak, each can "see" one another.

As far as CISCO routers, the sites aren't large enough to justify the cost. Spending $1,000 on a router for whizbang features we won't even use just doesn't make sense to me. Secondly, I find CISCO routers needlessly complex for what we need.
 
Back
Top