Dmvpn cisco Vs Peplink speed fusion


#1

hello please give me the advantage of peplink
On Cisco dmvn between two countries that running two vpls for redundancy and the upper goes to router Cisco development dmvpn
Pc—-vlan— dg backbone sw — two vpls layer 2 —-router —- router dmvn


#2

CISCO Dynamic Multipoint VPN is an approach to support automated build of IPSEC VPN’s from a remote client or gw device that might have a dynamic IP.
Initially a remote peer creates a spoke to hub connection to get DMVPN configurations and traffic profiles, then later spoke to hub and spoke to spoke traffic routing is possible.

SpeedFusion VPN also provides automated VPN build of PepVPN tunnels (based on IPSEC) from remote clients to a hub and / or peer to peer (with full support for dynamic IPs). It can either be configured manually on each peer/hub device or fully automated using InControl2. Point to Point connections can be Layer 2 or Layer 3.

That is where any similarities end though - since SpeedFusion is not your typical VPN technology.

On top of providing secure point to point tunnels, the power of SpeedFusion VPN comes when there is more than one WAN link on a gateway (either at the hub or spokes). When this is the case, Speedfusion VPN can also provide bandwidth bonding (bandwidth aggregation), seamless hot fail-over (at a packet level), packet loss compensation (WAN Smoothing) and intelligent granular control of traffic flow within the tunnel controlling how it flows across the available multiple WANs (Outbound Policy over bonded VPN tunnels).
You can learn more about SpeedFusion here.

These multi-WAN technologies combined with how insanely easy is it to configure SpeedFusion VPN is why it is better for most applications than CISCO DMVPN.


DMVPN support on MAX products
#3

Which one of the two will cost less to implement?


#4

As always. it depends.

Are you talking about CAPEX costs, OPEX costs, over 5 years, 10 years? For how many users at how many sites using what sort of connectivity?

Generally speaking, we win customer projects using Peplink equipment because we enable them to do something they couldn’t do before using other vendor technologies. Sometimes it is technically possible to achieve a similar end result using another vendor’s gear, but its never, ever been easier than using Peplink.


#5

Lets say CAPEX over five year period and also touch on the OPEX (life span).
One more question, Does the Balance model support VLAN on WAN ports?Lets say I want to have around 10 branch tunneling to HQ in a spoke and Hub topology.

I thinking of having a site to site VPN topology where by remote sites connect to HQ through third party firewall.

Remote LAN>>>>>Remote Balance Device>>>>>MPLS>>>>>>HQ FW>>>>>>>>HQ Balance Device>>>>>HQ LAN.


#6

If you send a specification of what you need to a Peplink partner and to a CISCO partner you’ll get your answer.

You can tag traffic on a Peplink WAN port, but you can’t have multiple VLANs. Your HQ FW would need provide routing from multiple VLANs to the WAN of the balance.