Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JohnNicholas

Pages: [1] 2
1
Troubleshooting / Re: Bridge mode over Layer3
« on: May 10, 2019, 07:13:55 AM »
The two setups are exactly the same so normally no additional configuration would be needed.

There is an exception: When the firewall strips or overwrites the TCP Option 76. There is more information on this at http://wanos.co/docs/docs/wanos-admin-guide/troubleshooting/firewalls/

2
Troubleshooting / Re: 4.2.4 testing tunnel mode over sonicwall issue
« on: November 19, 2018, 01:34:16 PM »
Hi Ben,

I am not 100% sure what the problem is. Could you explain it in a bit more detail?

If I understand correctly, your tunnels are configure and the tunnel traffic flows correctly over Wanos e.g. PC -> Wanos-1 -> Wanos-2 -> Server.
And this is true from both directions? E.g. Server -> wanos-2 -> wanos-1 -> PC

If so, then the configs are correct and the firewalls are allowing the tunnel traffic to pass, which leads me to the first sentence, I am not sure what the issue is being experienced. Would be glad to help, just need some more info.

Perhaps check license status?

3
Troubleshooting / Re: 4.2.4 testing tunnel mode over sonicwall issue
« on: November 15, 2018, 12:44:05 PM »
Hi Ben,

Please share:
tunnel policy config
tunnel encap setting on both ends
traceroute between the test machines, from both directions
Is there a VPN between the Firewalls? If not, how are the FWs NAT configured to get the tunnel public peering IP to the private Wanos IP.

4
Troubleshooting / Re: Optimised traffic not passing
« on: October 18, 2018, 08:24:25 AM »
Hi Karl,

Yes, there was a similar issue that was resolved in v.4.2.3. It might be related if running < 4.2.3

5
Troubleshooting / Re: TXP-X : How To Verify?
« on: September 13, 2018, 10:28:27 AM »
Yes, in bridge mode all the devices can actually be in the same subnet.

Quote
iPerf3 - optimized and accelerated I hit 103Mbps on the LAN Tx, optimized to 8.4Mbps on the WAN Tx.
That looks promising.

Any break through with the Dicom protocol?

6
Installation / Re: Free Express throughput
« on: September 13, 2018, 10:24:17 AM »
Hi Leeson,

"Are you already do this?"
This question is not clear.

To get a new key see Activate License

7
Troubleshooting / Re: TXP-X : How To Verify?
« on: September 08, 2018, 06:47:48 PM »
In the UI look for the session in the Netstat page. If TCP-X is not enabled the session will not show up.

2.7Mbps over a 20Mbps link with 40ms does not sound right. Maybe testing over a bad WiFi link? It seems very low.
Also TCP-X is designed for higher latency, not sure what the result will be at 40ms, but 2.7Mbps is way too low for a 20Mbps link.

To test the performance between the two instances:

Appliance 1:
cd /tce/www/redirect/
dd if=/dev/zero of=speedtest.file bs=1M count=100


Appliance 2:
wget http://appliance-1-ip/speedtest.file


Usually this should at least be around 100Mbps over a 20Mbps 40ms.

8
Configuration / Re: multiple networks via same tunnel (tunnel mode)
« on: February 09, 2018, 10:46:58 AM »
Hello,

To route multiple subnets over the same tunnel, use the same tunnel ID for each subnet :)

Unless I misunderstood the question?

9
General Discussion / Re: Test Enviroment
« on: January 03, 2018, 08:57:00 PM »
Hi NorbertR,

When testing on the same vlan the test would run at LAN speeds e.g. 1 Gbps. When testing through Wanos with the default license the test speed will be 1 Mbps WAN simulation. The 1 Mbps limit is imposed by the license after compression. So the end to end speed might be 10 Mbps, but on the WAN 1 Mbps is allowed.

Taking out the WAN Simulation and running the test on the same VLAN is going to produce LAN speeds, so the result as described by the OP is expected.

10
Sounds like the setup is working as expected. 10Mbps with optimization, 1Mbps without optimization - so there is definitely a 1 Mbps rate set on either Wanos via the global tx shaper or on the WAN routers.

With express in pass through and no shapers, the copy speed would be 100Mbps if latency is low and no loss.

11
General Discussion / Re: Test Enviroment
« on: November 20, 2017, 10:06:25 AM »
Quote
the ftp test result really slow than connect directly the server and the client on the same vlan

Your WAN simulation is really slow compared the LAN test. 100% expected result.

12
Installation / Re: I would like to help install Bare Metal Whitebox.
« on: August 17, 2017, 08:38:34 AM »
1) Yes, any normal x86 pc/server/appliance with normal BIOS (not-uefi bios boot)
2) No, can't see anything wrong, but not sure of the exact dd command used. If writing to partition number (sda1) and not disk (sda), it might not work as expected.
3) Instead of using dd, use win32disk imager or similar tool that writes the whole partition table as well.

13
General Discussion / Re: Home network benefit?
« on: July 24, 2017, 07:22:42 PM »
guessing this won't be a good use case out of the box
as a business tool, by default wanos bypasses those applications, not optimize

there was some talk about accelerated ipsec or a vpn optimization mobile client
something like that would be more suitable for home networks to stream netflix etc
or disable the heavy dedup & compression features & run packet loss recovery fec
should work nicely over internet vpn
maybe tcp optimization as well

but then again to make the accelerated ipsec mobile client, how many home users would pay $10pm for acceleration vpn, people are used to getting consumer products loaded with ads for free. pretty sure there is no appitite to spam here

14
General Discussion / Re: WanOs Performance Results
« on: July 24, 2017, 07:05:49 PM »
what would be considered low bandwidth
this would range from place to place

15
General Discussion / Re: Wanos hosting companies/partners?
« on: July 08, 2017, 11:05:03 AM »
What Faisal needs sounds like a desktop mobile client like the riverbed steelhead mobile client

Pages: [1] 2