An extremely massive fix at that :-):worship:
Printable View
Yes it is...
But to everyone else here have some patience. Remember, the reports module that makes up the bulk of the work done to 7.0 started back in March!
http://bugzilla.untangle.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3158
There is the IPSec bug, and it isn't assigned. Not enough votes.
Another point of view from the other side of the fence. Looking through the forums and the support logs, we get very high number of cases on the OpenVPN. Remember, the current implementation of the OpenVPN is with SSL. Its fairly easy to setup, yet we get high volume of support calls and forum posts.
Try and picture this scenario. Just imagine that the Untangle does support IPsec. Think about all the support calls and forum posts. (could be a good thing or bad, pending on whos looking)
Hehe, maybe a special $125/call IPSEC support fee. Could be quite the money maker for us until our support staff hang themselves.
In all seriousness, we have researched IPSEC support and are interested in doing it, it's just really hard to implement in a "plug and play" method. Anyone who has ever tried to make two different vendor's IPSEC VPNs work together knows what I'm talking about.
So what exactly do you guys want? Site to Site IPSEC? Windows IPSEC client support? Because most IPSEC setups (like monowall) don't support that today.
Which other IPSEC clients should we support?
Is the only issue with OpenVPN support that it isn't available on the iPhone? In what application does the iPhone require vpn support? I'm guessing HTTPS isn't sufficient for these applications?
Would an Untangle OS X openvpn client setup (like we do for windows) help things?
As for PPTP, I don't see that on the roadmap for Untangle, but I'm just one guy here. It's yesterday's technology that didn't provide what it said it should long ago.
Not trying to fan the flames, I'm genuinely curious.
I know this is off-topic, but I sincerely hope you guys are talking about SMB and not Enterprise/Government.
I'll send you my locked BB Pearl and you send me your locked iPhone. Let's see how long it takes the other to peak at the file system.
Heck, our Dear Leader uses a BB. :rolleyes:
Yes, we are looking for site-to-site for IPSEC. This way Untangle can be integrated into an existing infrastructure. For example, I have a client that we just finished replacing 6 sites with Untangle. This took FOREVER because Untangle doesn't support IPSEC. It was so complex running two different VPN networks (for the transition) I don't believe that most of your client base could even configure it to work. It was a pain, took 10x as long as it should, and was very expensive.
You NEED IPSEC so that Untangle can play with others. Especially if you are transitioning multiple sites to Untangle.
Yes, an Untangle OS X openvpn client setup would help.
What my clients need primarily is a site-to-site implementation. I need to be able to replace a Sonicwall or Cisco VPN between two sites without the need to replace all VPN routers that a company owns. Whether it is a new office, replacing a failed device, an upgrade or a trial - the installation needs to minimally disrupt the client operations. This would also provide many more options to install UT by reducing the operational impact and risk involved. It would be easy to say "lets install UT in one office as trial and see how you like it".
Having a Windows client would be helpful for the road warriors and access from home. Mac and Linux client support would also be nice.
You asked for it....and now you have my :twocents:...don't spend it all in one place!
i personally need IPSEC site-to-site for our fiance software that uses an IPSEC tunnel to do credit cards and for people to pay their taxes :]
We just need IPSEC that will work with the native clients built into the OS' it just makes life so much easier. No 3rd party app to install.