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 <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > 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 (desktop, laptop, tablet, phones...) and allows multiple clients > in the same public IP (for example, multiple people in the office sharing a > client-side public IP/nat while trying to connect to a VPC or an isolated > network) and for these reasons many users actually deploy pfSense or setup > a OpenVPN server in their isolated network or VPC and use that instead. > > Therefore for the point-to-point VPN use-case of remote access [1] does it > make sense to switch to OpenVPN? Or, are there users using > strongswan/ipsec/l2tpd for remote access VPN? > > A general-purpose VPN-framework/provider where an account or admin (via > offering) can specify which VPN provider they want in the network > (strongswan/ipsec, OpenVPN, Wireguard...). However, it may be more complex > to implement and maintain. Any other thoughts in general about VPN > implementation and support in CloudStack? Thanks. > > [1] > http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/latest/adminguide/networking_and_traffic.html#remote-access-vpn > > > > Regards. > > > > -- Daan
