VPN and Satellite
Brian fOX
telecommute to work via a Cisco's VPN using IPSEC. I think that Starband
and Directway block the port IPSEC uses for residential customers use but
allow it for business class. I have also heard that the VPN connection slows
to about dialup, but it may be faster for me since my dialup is 28.8K. I
also pay for a 2nd phone line for dialup. so if I could use the satellite
for both I can get rid of the 2nd phone line. I also have 3 computers that I
would like access on and 1 is a Mac.
1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
2.) If I wanted to connect multiple computers can I use internet connection
sharing, or some sort of a router.
3.) which vendor is preferred Directway or starband
Thanks for all responses
lehighs...@earthlink.net
notorious,,,the delay kills the connection install all the sat internets and
VPN is not for them,,,sorry
Greg
"Brian fOX" <bcm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:GDjKb.283964$Ec1.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
samuel
software to make vpn's work with satellite.You will have to email them.I
think it costs $200 for the software.Vpn's on satellite is 56Kb/s not
28.8.See the VPN software signal's are encrypted and has a hard time running
with satellite compression software.Starband has some networking ideas for
you.Like a server type. www.sygate.com
<lehighs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aFnKb.11058$6B.1...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
DJ
Nor are corner crack dealers, overpopulation, and the vunerabilities
of having somebody else control your power and water supplies ;-).
> 1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
I will be shortly, say, by end of January. I am told by my installer
that he has other customers that do use it, and talking to their
engineers, yes, it can work.
> 3.) which vendor is preferred Directway or starband
I have heard nothing but negative opinions of DirecWay's customer
support; that's why I went LincSat. Starband is supposed, also, to be
very good, but is not available here in Canada... yet.
DJ
Peter
year is up I will quit and either go back to an additional phone line
or find a new satellite provider(I too live in a remote area). If I
had it to do again I would never have signed up w/DW. Their customer
support is based in India and the last time I called for help the tech
told me that someone had snuck past my firewall and sabotaged the DW
software. Sheesh. They will give you the typical customer support
runaround, reboot three times, change all the software settings that
have been working just fine since day 1, then wiggle your left ear
while whistling chopsticks through a straw.
Regarding VPN - I have been able to establish VPN connections to my
workplace, but it's unreliable. Once it's connected it seems fine
(limited to slooow satellite speed) but it sometimes won't connect for
days. I don't think the boss understands. My backup is remote software
via modem. I read somewhere that the security handshake is the
problem, too much latency in the satellite connection.
Someday I hope satellite will be as fast (or close) to cable or DSL.
But until that day I'm hesitant to spend about twice as much as a
phone line for an internet connection that is overall about the same
speed as a phone line. I wish I had better advice and a better
internet connection. ;^(
Pete
dj_mac...@hotmail.com (DJ) wrote in message news:<e8b05f0a.0401...@posting.google.com>...
DJ
> I use Direcway and have been for about 9 months. When my mandatory
> year is up I will quit and either go back to an additional phone line
> or find a new satellite provider(I too live in a remote area).
I hear good things about Starband, but it's not available in Canada. I
used LincSat, which buys access off DirecWay's satellite. So far, I'm
very happy with the customer service (and have actually had a few beer
with the local rep ;-).
> Someday I hope satellite will be as fast (or close) to cable or DSL.
> But until that day I'm hesitant to spend about twice as much as a
> phone line for an internet connection that is overall about the same
> speed as a phone line. I wish I had better advice and a better
> internet connection. ;^(
Well, I had the choice of running LincSat for internet and telephone,
or stringing 150 000$ worth of telephone/electric poles to my log
cabin in the woods. Going with satellite was the better choice for me
;-).
Thankfully, I only would need VPN for accessing the servers at work,
not for general net surfing, nor email, so it shouldn't be much of an
inconvenience.
DJ
Puzzle Systems
Brian fOX wrote:
> I live out in the country where DSL and cable modem is not available. I
> telecommute to work via a Cisco's VPN using IPSEC. I think that Starband
> and Directway block the port IPSEC uses for residential customers use but
> allow it for business class. I have also heard that the VPN connection slows
> to about dialup, but it may be faster for me since my dialup is 28.8K. I
> also pay for a 2nd phone line for dialup. so if I could use the satellite
> for both I can get rid of the 2nd phone line. I also have 3 computers that I
> would like access on and 1 is a Mac.
>
> 1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
Satellites and VPN's really don't get along well. The problem is latency (the
time it takes the signal to make a round trip up and then back down from the
satellite). With DirecWay (and just about any other satellite service provider)
this can be up to 1200 milliseconds PER KEY STROKE.
The satellite VPN connection is extremely slow if it works at all. A dial-up VPN
connection is both more reliable and faster than doing it by satellite. To be
clear, the difficulty isn't a DirecWay issue...it's a generic satellite issue
because the satellite is 25K miles above the earth in geostationary orbit. Think
of satellite VPN operations as having a car that will go 5 mph. If you ask the
car salesman if you can take this car from SF to NY, the literal answer is
yes...but who wants to. Again, satellites and VPNs just don't get along
well...at all.
Puzzle Systems
www.getsatserv.com
Mark Huizer
>
>
>> 1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
>
> Satellites and VPN's really don't get along well. The problem is latency (the
> time it takes the signal to make a round trip up and then back down from the
> satellite). With DirecWay (and just about any other satellite service provider)
> this can be up to 1200 milliseconds PER KEY STROKE.
Yes to some extent for interactive sessions. But for file transfers (and
to some level also for interactive sessions), you can get better
transfer rates. Just as there are ways to 'enhance' the tcp speed, there
are also solutions that will speed up the vpn connections. This will not
be your standard out of the box Cisco VPN solution, but there are
improvements.
>
> of satellite VPN operations as having a car that will go 5 mph. If you ask the
> car salesman if you can take this car from SF to NY, the literal answer is
> yes...but who wants to. Again, satellites and VPNs just don't get along
> well...at all.
Actually, getting from SF to NY is what satellite connections are good
at. Throughput is important, latency matters less. It's that drive to
your local grocery that is more of a pain.
Mark
--
Monday is a hard way to spend one-seventh of your life
DJ
> > 1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
>
> Satellites and VPN's really don't get along well. The problem is latency (the
> time it takes the signal to make a round trip up and then back down from the
> satellite).
Just installed VPN on my system at home; running LincSat, which uses
the DirecWay satellite for true two-way internet (no phone line
involved). It worked!
> The satellite VPN connection is extremely slow if it works at all. A dial-up VPN
> connection is both more reliable and faster than doing it by satellite. To be
> clear, the difficulty isn't a DirecWay issue...it's a generic satellite issue
> because the satellite is 25K miles above the earth in geostationary orbit.
Yes. If I had to estimate speed, I'd say that the VPN connection was
something in the 14.4kbs range, if THAT fast. But it did work... the
one time, so far, that I have tried it.
DJ
Puzzle Systems
DJ wrote:
> Puzzle Systems <in...@puzzle.com> wrote in message
>
> > > 1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
> >
> > Satellites and VPN's really don't get along well. The problem is latency (the
> > time it takes the signal to make a round trip up and then back down from the
> > satellite).
>
> Just installed VPN on my system at home; running LincSat, which uses
> the DirecWay satellite for true two-way internet (no phone line
> involved). It worked!
"Work" is a very big word in this context. VPNs via satellite are slower than molassas
if they work at all. The whole purpose of establishing a VPN is for interactive use
(to wit: how many VPNs are established that DON'T have this in mind....precious few).
> > The satellite VPN connection is extremely slow if it works at all. A dial-up VPN
> > connection is both more reliable and faster than doing it by satellite. To be
> > clear, the difficulty isn't a DirecWay issue...it's a generic satellite issue
> > because the satellite is 25K miles above the earth in geostationary orbit.
>
> Yes. If I had to estimate speed, I'd say that the VPN connection was
> something in the 14.4kbs range, if THAT fast. But it did work... the
> one time, so far, that I have tried it.
That's what I'm talking about. The problem is that there are those who will tell you
that VPNs and satellites do "work". These words are absolutely misleading from a
practical standpoint. 300 baud modems work too but do you know anyone who'd like to be
stuck using one? I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
Puzzle Systems
Puzzle Systems
Mark Huizer wrote:
> The wise Puzzle Systems enlightened me with:
> >
> >
> >> 1.) Has anyone tried VPN over satellite and if so how are the results?
> >
> > Satellites and VPN's really don't get along well. The problem is latency (the
> > time it takes the signal to make a round trip up and then back down from the
> > satellite). With DirecWay (and just about any other satellite service provider)
> > this can be up to 1200 milliseconds PER KEY STROKE.
>
> Yes to some extent for interactive sessions.
Absolutely true for interactive sessions. This is where the latency is at its worst
and where VPNs and satellites are really mismatched.
> But for file transfers (and
> to some level also for interactive sessions), you can get better
> transfer rates. Just as there are ways to 'enhance' the tcp speed, there
> are also solutions that will speed up the vpn connections. This will not
> be your standard out of the box Cisco VPN solution, but there are
> improvements.
The only ways to "enhance" the tcp speed is to remove the packet integrity
checking...not a great way to go if data integrity is important. You can fool around
with various "batch" methods but at the end of the day, none are suited to
interactivity. The other thing to consider is to ask yourself "How many VPNs have
been established that DON'T require any kind of interactivity?". It's a rhetorical
question. I've been involved with many and ALL the ones that I've been involved with
were established with interactivity as the primary reason for their establishment.
> > of satellite VPN operations as having a car that will go 5 mph. If you ask the
> > car salesman if you can take this car from SF to NY, the literal answer is
> > yes...but who wants to. Again, satellites and VPNs just don't get along
> > well...at all.
>
> Actually, getting from SF to NY is what satellite connections are good
> at. Throughput is important, latency matters less. It's that drive to
> your local grocery that is more of a pain.
I think that going from SF to NY and pulling off every offramp along the way would be
a bit of a pain too, no? :-)
The reason that it's important to make this point (VPNs and satellites not getting
along), is because I've heard WAY too many times that they do get along only to see
people try and implement them and be thoroughly disappointed. As you correctly infer,
if you want to browse the Internet and send/receive E-mail then the satellites are a
viable solution. It's when we move beyond that things become very "iffy" in a hurry.
Puzzle Systems
DJ
> "Work" is a very big word in this context. VPNs via satellite are slower than molassas
> if they work at all.
Well, there you go, defining your own context ;-). Yes, on MY system,
using LincSat, that uses the DirecWay bird, it does WORK, as opposed
to not working at all. And yes, it is slower than molasses ;-).
> The whole purpose of establishing a VPN is for interactive use
> (to wit: how many VPNs are established that DON'T have this in mind....precious few).
I wasn't trying to play Rainbow6, I was just fetching work-server
email ;-). And for that, yes, indeed, it works fine (LotusNotes, btw).
The necessity of that being that if I can get into that particular
email, and respond from that email software, it has value to my
employer. Monetary value ;-).
> That's what I'm talking about. The problem is that there are those who will tell you
> that VPNs and satellites do "work". These words are absolutely misleading from a
> practical standpoint.
It would be, I agree, a very loaded statement, to say VPN "works" on
a satellite system. It GREATLY depends on what the user needs it for.
For what *I* needed it for, it does indeed, "work". If somebody needed
to be uploading and downloading multi-meg files, it would very likely
drive one insane. And for when I need to do that, I can get OUT of VPN
and send them normally; again, slower than broadband, slower than
cable, slower than high-speed dialup, too, perhaps, but still faster
than walking ;-). I have *NO* other option besides satellite, and I
am sure there are others like me out there.
> 300 baud modems work too but do you know anyone who'd like to be
> stuck using one? I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
I do, indeed, but it isn't, or wasn't, *that* slow. It was, to
continue your analogy, akin to using a 14 400 baud modem, and there
are still *lots* of people that are connecting at that speed using
dialup, regardless to what their modem says it's capable of. Painful,
but a link none the less.
My origional statement was intended to those who are faced with, say,
going up to the cottage for a week's summer vacation *ONLY* if they
can get their email, and if their email has to go through VPN; Well,
then, in my personal experience, they can "load up the minivan"!
If said person wanted to *WORK* from said cottage, and did something
technical, programming, large scale web design, etc, and their only
portal was satellite VPN, I'd suggest buying a large number of zip
disks or going to a good bookstore and loading up as it seems it might
"take a while" ;-).
DJ
DJ
> The problem is latency (the
> time it takes the signal to make a round trip up and then back down from the
> satellite). With DirecWay (and just about any other satellite service provider)
> this can be up to 1200 milliseconds PER KEY STROKE.
Meant to ask you about that, actually. Are you talking about live
interraction with a remote machine, a la "PC AnyWhere" or the like,
where you virtually work on a machine elsewhere? Hadn't thought of
that; haven't had a contract using that kind of technology in a while.
Yeah, that would be bad ;-).
DJ
Puzzle Systems
DJ wrote:
> Puzzle Systems <in...@puzzle.com> wrote in message
>
> > "Work" is a very big word in this context. VPNs via satellite are slower than molassas
> > if they work at all.
>
> Well, there you go, defining your own context ;-). Yes, on MY system,
> using LincSat, that uses the DirecWay bird, it does WORK, as opposed
> to not working at all. And yes, it is slower than molasses ;-).
>
> > The whole purpose of establishing a VPN is for interactive use
> > (to wit: how many VPNs are established that DON'T have this in mind....precious few).
>
> I wasn't trying to play Rainbow6, I was just fetching work-server
> email ;-). And for that, yes, indeed, it works fine (LotusNotes, btw).
> The necessity of that being that if I can get into that particular
> email, and respond from that email software, it has value to my
> employer. Monetary value ;-).
Ok, fair enough. :-)
> > That's what I'm talking about. The problem is that there are those who will tell you
> > that VPNs and satellites do "work". These words are absolutely misleading from a
> > practical standpoint.
>
> It would be, I agree, a very loaded statement, to say VPN "works" on
> a satellite system. It GREATLY depends on what the user needs it for.
> For what *I* needed it for, it does indeed, "work". If somebody needed
> to be uploading and downloading multi-meg files, it would very likely
> drive one insane. And for when I need to do that, I can get OUT of VPN
> and send them normally; again, slower than broadband, slower than
> cable, slower than high-speed dialup, too, perhaps, but still faster
> than walking ;-). I have *NO* other option besides satellite, and I
> am sure there are others like me out there.
There are, no doubt about it.
> > 300 baud modems work too but do you know anyone who'd like to be
> > stuck using one? I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
>
> I do, indeed, but it isn't, or wasn't, *that* slow. It was, to
> continue your analogy, akin to using a 14 400 baud modem, and there
> are still *lots* of people that are connecting at that speed using
> dialup, regardless to what their modem says it's capable of. Painful,
> but a link none the less.
Just reading this, I feel your pain, brother. :-)
> My origional statement was intended to those who are faced with, say,
> going up to the cottage for a week's summer vacation *ONLY* if they
> can get their email, and if their email has to go through VPN; Well,
> then, in my personal experience, they can "load up the minivan"!
> If said person wanted to *WORK* from said cottage, and did something
> technical, programming, large scale web design, etc, and their only
> portal was satellite VPN, I'd suggest buying a large number of zip
> disks or going to a good bookstore and loading up as it seems it might
> "take a while" ;-).
Quite right. It's entirely dependent on the fact that what one is doing NOT be interactive
in nature. To be honest, I just got tired of seeing people being told that VPNs and
satellites work just fine without any qualifiers being given them to make them understand
how that might not be true from a practical standpoint. The reason for this misinformation
is quite straightforward....the guys giving the information had no clue how VPNs work in
general and why they're so sensitive as to whether or not the application is interactive in
nature. That doesn't help the guy (or gal) who gets steered down the golden path of "it
works".
....I think we're in violent agreement. :-)
Puzzle Systems
www.puzzle.com
Puzzle Systems
DJ wrote:
Yes, with interactive apps the latency can just render things glacial as far as
activity is concerned...and a slow moving glacier at that. :-)
Puzzle Systems
DJ
> the guys giving the information had no clue how VPNs work in
> general and why they're so sensitive as to whether or not the application is interactive in
> nature. That doesn't help the guy (or gal) who gets steered down the golden path of "it
> works".
>
> ....I think we're in violent agreement. :-)
Absolutely! You see that in every business, really, where you get
confronted with salesmen who 'talk the talk', but don't 'walk the
walk'. Heck, even in my own industry, alternative energy/off grid
living, you get alot of it. Sales people living *on* grid, *never*
having lived off grid, pushing weak systems and offering "straight out
of the dealer brochure" advice but offering no support, no long term
commitments.
And that, to wander off on a tangent, briefly, is where I try to be
different: I live off grid, so I feel comfortable telling people just
"how it really is". My phone comes in over the net (Net2Phone), so I
feel comfortable telling people "how it really is". The salesman, as
you mentioned, told me that VPN and satellite was "fine", but well
intentioned as he was, he himself had never tried it. So I reserved
judgement until I *ACTUALLY* tried it myself, and then would feel
comfortable, commenting.
But you are absolutely right: there are far too many salesmen trying
to blow far too much smoke up far too many consumer's bottoms out
there to accept anything at face value. Caveat Emptor. In spades.
DJ