On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:38:55AM -0500, Chris Black wrote:
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:53:50AM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
> >
> >> Joachim Schipper wrote:
> >>
> >>> All in all, I might choose OpenVPN if it involved end users (lots of
> >>> NAT, Windows, and other crappy stuff),
> >>>
> >> OpenVPN isn't exactly awesome on Windows.
> >
> > No, but 'not exactly awesome' is pretty much a given if Windows is
> > involved. And OpenVPN is easier to get working with consumer routers
> > than IPsec.
> >
> I think it is pretty damn decent myself, if not awesome. We set up our
> employee machines with the proper keys and config file, that part
> requires some effort. However, you can create an installer for the
> windows gui that has your config preloaded (not sure about keys). Once
> it is installed it is as simple as right clicking a systray icon and
> choosing to activate the VPN. Pretty easy for the end user. We've also
> found the installation and operation much less troublesome than any
> freely available windows IPSec client we've tried.
Yes, but it's still a userland VPN which is severely 'elegance impaired'
(WhyTF does Windows require four IP addresses?).
But yes, it works. Still, it involves Windows - and I'm inclined to
agree with what the signature picker chose this time.
Joachim
--
TFMotD: fsck_msdos (8) - DOS/Windows (FAT) file system consistency
checker
