Re: [Samba] remote site options
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:57:45 -0400
- From: Gaiseric Vandal via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] remote site options
For 3 remote systems, it seems that adding a remote DC will be more work than it is worth. Sonicwall UTM's make it pretty easy to set up site-to-site VPN connections even if only end has a static public IP. I believe that the remote PC's would locate the domain controllers via DNS so you shouldn't have to worry about NBT or WINS. The sonicwall's also include various IP Helpers (e.g. for relaying DHCP requests to a central DHCP server.) I am sure that Cisco and other SOHO solutions offer similar functionality. The hardware VPN approach is probably simpler than trying to build your own VPN server with OpenVPN.
Assuming the client PC's are caching logins - even if the VPN link does down the remote users will still be able to login to their computers.
On 09/09/18 16:28, Reindl Harald via samba wrote:
Am 09.09.18 um 21:52 schrieb Sonic:On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:27 PM Reindl Harald via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Am 09.09.18 um 17:16 schrieb Sonic via samba:Currently using Samba 4 as AD at the main site and would like the main site AD to authenticate users at a remote site (about 3 systems). As I use my domain management system from a remote location via VPN I know this works, but the VPN may not be the lowest cost in terms of overhead.why?Encryption overheadirrelevant, completly irrelevant i drive a forest of 365/24 openvpn instances termination on the same virtual machine where each endpoint connects a complete network which runs most of the day below 100 MHz sorry, but encryption don't matter these days except you have stoneold hardware wich no AES support and even then i doubt that you could mease something relevant
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba