headers
현옥 장 | 4 Feb 2008 11:54
Picon
Favicon

Hello (Please Help me)

Hellow 
Please Help me 

I have a situation like this
Home1  ------ Internet -----      
                                            |      
Home2  -------Internet ----+---------  PopTop ---- Office LAN
                           |                | 
Home3  -------Internet ----+                       |                      
                                                                     |
                                                 Fedora Core 5  poptop RPM install
                                                Only One nic eth0  (Public.ip.add.109) public.gate.way.126
                                                The server has no internal network.    
pptpd.conf
localip 172.16.0.126
remoteip 172.16.0.1-40,172.16.1.1-40

chap-secrets
# Secrets for authentication using CHAP
# client        server  secret                  IP addresses
user1  * 1234   172.16.0.1
user2  *  1234   172.16.0.2
user3  *  1234   172.16.0.3
....
....
o_user1  * 1234   172.16.1.1
o_user2  *  1234   172.16.1.2
o_user3  *  1234   172.16.1.3
....
....
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mark L. Wise | 4 Feb 2008 19:43

Re: Hello (Please Help me)

I don't follow all that you are asking, but I think your chap-secrets
needs to list the poptop server ID in the second column and I usually
allow access from any IP for the connection, so the fourth column should
be "*" (unless you really want to limit access to the poptop server from
each of those stated addresses....

Also, for your iptables entries, the interface is ppp+ that you need to
allow traffic through....

I hope this helps,

Mark

현옥 장 wrote:
> Hellow 
> Please Help me 
>
> I have a situation like this
> Home1  ------ Internet -----      
>                                             |      
> Home2  -------Internet ----+---------  PopTop ---- Office LAN
>                            |                | 
> Home3  -------Internet ----+                       |                      
>                                                                      |
>                                                  Fedora Core 5  poptop RPM install
>                                                 Only One nic eth0  (Public.ip.add.109) public.gate.way.126
>                                                 The server has no internal network.    
> pptpd.conf
> localip 172.16.0.126
> remoteip 172.16.0.1-40,172.16.1.1-40
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charlie Brady | 4 Feb 2008 20:29

Re: Hello (Please Help me)


On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, [euc-kr] Çö¿Á Àå wrote:

> PLEASE HELP ME

What problem do you want help with? You have described your network setup, 
but haven't said what isn't working in the way that you want it to work. 
You also haven't described what you want to achieve.

You might find it useful to read this essay:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html

---
Charlie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
현옥 장 | 5 Feb 2008 05:47
Picon
Favicon

Hello ... proxy ARP error

My poptop  fedora core 5

pptpd.conf
localip 172.16.3.1
remoteip 172.16.0.1-100,172.16.1.1-100

My poptop  eth0  ==> IP alias Public IP xxx.xxx.xxx.2~100

tail -f /var/log/messages...
Cannot determine ethernet address for proxy ARP

pptpd.conf 
localip xxx.xxx.xxx.1
remoteip xxx.xxx.xxx.2~100

tail -f /var/log/messages....

NO error

      ________________________________________________________ 
180도 달라진 야후! 메일 - 여러 개의 메시지를 동시에 확인? 새로운 야후!
메일의 탭으로 가능해집니다.
http://kr.content.mail.yahoo.com/cgland

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Poptop-server mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark L. Wise | 5 Feb 2008 15:24

Performance questions....

Hello all!

I have a client who is asking about speed/performance over a VPN .vs. a LAN.

Do any of you have any input regarding this?

I know that this is dependent on connection speeds at the remote and 
local ISP, but, assuming T1 speeds on both ends, and a 1 Gb LAN, what 
kind of speed hit would we expect?  Would the VPN connection be 2-3 
times slower than the LAN?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Mark

--

-- 
Mark L. Wise

Alpha II Service, Inc.
1312 Epworth Ave
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2116
USA

Office: (614) 868-5033
Fax: (614) 868-1060
Email: mark <at> alpha2.com
WEB: www.alpha2.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Gene Nazarov | 5 Feb 2008 15:49

Re: Performance questions....

Here's how I understand it:

VPN (or pptpd) connection is a basically a serial port over Ethernet. 

Long story short, maximum speed is basically this: 115,200 bps (that's
bits). Or roughly 90 KBps. The actual user experience will of course
vary since the transfer rate is highly dependant on 'compressiveness' of
the data coming through. For comparison, LAN is at least 100 Mbps (or 13
MBps give or take), and obviously much higher if you are dealing with 1
Gbps LAN speeds.

If you need faster tunnels, look into alternatives such as OpenVPN which
gives great results overall (or IPSec, though I'm not too familiar with
its speed).

If I'm wrong in my understanding, someone would be sure to correct me of
course ;).

-----Original Message-----
From: poptop-server-bounces <at> lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:poptop-server-bounces <at> lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Mark
L. Wise
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:25 AM
To: poptop-server <at> lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Poptop-server] Performance questions....

Hello all!

I have a client who is asking about speed/performance over a VPN .vs. a
LAN.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
James Cameron | 5 Feb 2008 22:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: Performance questions....

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:49:25AM -0600, Gene Nazarov wrote:
> VPN (or pptpd) connection is a basically a serial port over Ethernet. 

It might look like that, especially since the pptpd this project ships
cannot cope with packet re-ordering.  Other implementations are more
able to recover.

> Long story short, maximum speed is basically this: 115,200 bps (that's
> bits). Or roughly 90 KBps.

I disagree.  I've seen maximum speeds of about 85% of the total link
bandwidth. But as soon as packet loss occurs, there is a severe
degradation in performance.

(I'm curious about this 115200 idea.  At one stage we had code in pptpd
that would pass 115200 to pppd, and pppd would use this to set the baud
rate of the pseudo-tty ... but I don't know any kernel that would obey
that rate.  We removed that code.)

> If you need faster tunnels, look into alternatives such as OpenVPN which
> gives great results overall (or IPSec, though I'm not too familiar with
> its speed).

I agree.

Answering the original poster ... I did a performance test of pptpd last
year or the year before, on 100 Mb LAN and two-way satellite, to find
out how many tunnels could be run between two hosts before no further
tunnels could be started.  I didn't note any unusual curvature of the
results as far as link throughput is concerned.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Gene Nazarov | 5 Feb 2008 23:30

Re: Performance questions....


You heard the man! :) Additional comments in-line. 

>It might look like that, especially since the pptpd this project ships
>cannot cope with packet re-ordering.  Other implementations are more
>able to recover.

Whoops, I meant poptop that's sitting on pppd, my slip there. 

> I disagree.  I've seen maximum speeds of about 85% of the total link
> bandwidth. But as soon as packet loss occurs, there is a severe
> degradation in performance.

Won't argue as you're the man in this.

> (I'm curious about this 115200 idea.  At one stage we had code in
pptpd
> that would pass 115200 to pppd, and pppd would use this to set the
baud
> rate of the pseudo-tty ... but I don't know any kernel that would obey
> that rate.  We removed that code.)

115k is the maximum serial port speed. If pptpd emulates serial port,
logically that would be its max speed (potentially kernel limited). My
WinXP box shows the properties of the connection as 10Mbit, but that
doesn't mean much as its XP and all, and its 'properties' when it comes
to a lot of things are somewhere between and approximation and a wild
guess.

Well funny you say that, as now I'm getting interested in this whole
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
James Cameron | 5 Feb 2008 23:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Performance questions....

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 04:30:53PM -0600, Gene Nazarov wrote:
> Won't argue as you're the man in this.

Don't let that influence evidence though.  I'm quite willing to be
wrong.

> 115k is the maximum serial port speed.

No, it isn't.  Only certain platforms have that as a maximum speed.

> If pptpd emulates serial port, logically that would be its max speed
> (potentially kernel limited).

Ah, but it doesn't emulate a serial port.  There's nothing in the PPTP
RFCs that says "emulate a serial port".  The code uses a pseudo-tty as
the data connection between pptpd and pppd, but there's no reason why we
could not re-implement PPP inside pptpd.  Just a lot of work for little
benefit.

> I'm not sure I would be willing to send you gigabit equipment and all
> :). But if you are interested I may be coaxed into running some numbers
> to see just how fast it would go under normal enterprise conditions.

We are all interested in results, if you have the time to be careful
enough to document what you did and what the results were.  ;-)

I expect a performance test would take me about a day or two to do
properly, using two test systems and a crossover cable.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gene Nazarov | 6 Feb 2008 00:15

Re: VPN Speed test (WAS: Performance questions....)

Completely un-scientific test numbers:

Test: Copy the file down to the remote computer.

Test File:
Size: 40.7 MB

FTP over VPN
Speed: 350 k/s
Time: 115 seconds

SMB over VPN
Speed: 270 k/s 
Time: 150 seconds

SpeedTest
Speed test from the same computer (which isn't making any sense to me
for 
some reason as they're either too high or too low depending on how you
read it: http://www.dslreports.com/im/45325144/86282.png 

Personal note: I guess I stand corrected as far as speed goes. Keep in
mind that those are all spur of the moment numbers without any control
conditions. This was done on friend's computer, and I can swear that it
doesn't take as fast when done from mine at home (we're both on
Comcast). 

Conclusion: individual experience *will* vary. At any rate I'll run some
more numbers a tad later.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane