We have been investigating the use of eSIMs as a way to remotely access the Peplink routers even if all other WANs fail.
Is it possible to have the ability to be able to select eSIM to only be able to access particular websites ie our webpage but block all other outbound traffic when only using the eSIM.
1 Like
+1 from me
I think this feature has merit.
However, it would be nice to have a “final fallback” connection. For example, if all else fail, use this connection only for router management features (IC2 access etc.).
To be used in case of troubleshooting.
For Marine, this could be VSAT, Fleet Broadband or eSIM.
Even with the new Starlink rules, it could be used as the speed is so low it’s unable to be used by anything, but remote access.
Essentially what we are requesting is more levels in outbound policies:
- Per Cellular Module and Per SIM on that Module.
- Restrict to only IC2/Mangement access if X/Y/Z has failed
- Allow for the new Starlink API to read if out of data (on reduced speed) to be used only for IC2 access
@AgentAdam
@Giedrius
Thoughts?
2 Likes
It would be nice if the router could check if it can access peplink.com and IC2 on its current connection, and if not then use another connection in priority till it can
Use a Speedfusion tunnel and send all peplink.com traffic down it could be a work around, but you wont always have or need a Speedfusion tunnel.
This is probably a feature request in its own right.
@Atlantissec is the request for outbound rules sim card specific or cellular WAN specific?
+1 for me too.
And I think it could be similar to what is used with the Bandwidth Allowance Monitor:
There might be a option to do this already if you use Sim A and Sim B just like in the option above you can set one for excluding IC2 traffic when you hit 100% usage.
An Outbound Policy Rule would be better and easier to use with all kinds of WAN options 
AgentAdam, my request would be to have the option to choose between SIM Options ie A or B or eSIM (BYO or Peplink eSIM) when setting outbound policies.
My idea is that we could “always” have connectivity to the router for support purposes and not have the data of the eSIM for other purposes.
We have had many situations where the ISP has “accidentally” “throttled” the account or the customer has forgotten to pay their bill and asked us for remote support to help solve the issue.
On another note, I feel it was a missed oportunity to not name Peplink’s eSIM product, “PepSIM”
I think that’s a good explanation - hopefully this gets taken on by Peplink.
As for the name, we already have Peplink PepXim devices, so might be the reason why not using PepSIM as the same (too similar).