@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DKIM Fail] Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to OpenVPN as the remote access VPN
provider
Hi PL,
You can check the ikev2 support in 4.15+ here:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/4953
I think a generic VPN framework-provider feature is probably what we need (i.e.
to let user or
package is available on Debian:
https://packages.debian.org/buster-backports/openvpn
Regards.
From: Pierre-Luc Dion
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 20:10
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to OpenVPN as the remote access VPN prov
estarts (with cleanup). I think a process like this
> could
> >> be simpler than what we've right now, and the ovpn download+import
> workflow
> >> would be easier than what we'll get from either strongswan/current or
> >> wireguard. While I like the simpli
n't mind doing setup on individual VMs (much like setting up
>> ssh key) or use something like TailScale.
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> From: Gabriel Bräscher
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 19:28
>> To: dev
&g
doing setup on individual VMs (much like setting up
> ssh key) or use something like TailScale.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> ________________
> From: Gabriel Bräscher
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 19:28
> To: dev
> Cc: users
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Ope
g up ssh key) or use something like TailScale.
Regards.
From: Gabriel Bräscher
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 19:28
To: dev
Cc: users
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to OpenVPN as the remote access VPN provider
I understand that OpenVPN is a great option and far a
I understand that OpenVPN is a great option and far adopted.
I am ++1 in allowing Users/Admins to choose which VPN provider suits them
best; creating an offering (or global settings) that would allow setting
which VPN provider will be used would be awesome.
I understand that OpenVPN is a great op
Hello,
Daan, I agree we should provide capability to select the vpn solution to
use, the question would be, should it be a global setting generic for the
whole region or per VPC?
I think it should be a global setting to reduce the requirement complexity
of a region, but per VPC or customer(accoun
This is a potential religious debate, I think it makes the most sense to
try and make the provider optional and let the operator or even the
end-user decide. I see how this is an extra challenge, but does it make
sense?
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:24 AM Rohit Yadav
wrote:
> All,
>
> We've histori
riginal Message-----
> > > From: Rohit Yadav
> > > Sent: 10 June 2021 10:25
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; us...@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Moving to OpenVPN as the remote access VPN provider
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
&
Hello,
We've provided a PR for the remote management VPC to support IKEv2 using
SSL cert to auth the server and username/password for users [1].
The problem with OpenVPN is that it requires a custom client for some OSes
such as windows, compared to IKEv2; it's supported out of the box on
Windows,
Yes, OpenVPN is proposed to implement the remote access vpn feature (it is
currently an IPSec/L2TP vpn server using Strongswan).
site-to-site vpn in vpcs (also using strongswan) will not be changed.
-Wei
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 18:51, Kristaps Cudars
wrote:
> OpenVPN is SSL/TLS VPN and it has no
OpenVPN is SSL/TLS VPN and it has no support for IPSec. OpenVPN should coexist
with Strongswan. OpenVPN is ment for vpn client connective many to one.
Strongswan is meant for P2P connectivity.
On 2021/06/10 08:39:14, Rudraksh MK wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I’m personally a strong proponent of Wireguard
; -Original Message-
> From: Rohit Yadav
> Sent: 10 June 2021 10:25
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; us...@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Moving to OpenVPN as the remote access VPN provider
>
> All,
>
> We've historically supported openswan and nowadays
+1 on OpenVPN, and then a framework later on.
-Original Message-
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: 10 June 2021 10:25
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; us...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Moving to OpenVPN as the remote access VPN provider
All,
We've historically supported ope
Hey!
I’m personally a strong proponent of Wireguard. A couple years back,
implementing a S2S or remote-access VPN with WG was complicated and it still is
- but there’s definitely more tooling available these days. There are clients
for just about every major platform - desktop and mobile.
In t
All,
We've historically supported openswan and nowadays strongswan as the VPN
provider in VR for both site-to-site and remote access modes. After discussing
the situation with a few users and colleagues I learnt that OpenVPN is
generally far easier to use, have clients for most OS and platforms
17 matches
Mail list logo
