I am looking to add a site-to-site IPsec VPN to a branch office (Balance 305 to Balance One Core in branch office). Will that have any impact on the current LT2P/IPsec remote access that I have already set up?
This should be no problem but PepVPN is a better solution for a site-to-site VPN between a Balance 305 and Balance One Core at the branch office.
Thanks. Would a PepVPN license need to be installed on both routers?
No license is needed for PepVPN.
Ah! I must be thinking of SpeedFusion.
One the Balance 305, I see the VPN option of PepVPN with SpeedFusion…that’s where I’m wanting to know if there’s an additional cost for that, or is it already built in to the device.
Beginning in firmware 7, the Balance 305 can connect to two peers using SpeedFusion without any license. PepVPN is supported on all models however.
Do the peers need any license (Balance One Core)?
A Balance One Core (which has PepVPN support out of the box) can connect to a B305 (that now supports SpeedFusion VPN) without any additional licensing.
Since the B305 has SF licence, multi-WANs can be used by the B305 for the VPN simultaneously - providing WAN resilience and bandwidth aggregation at that location.
Unless the Balance One has the additional SF license installed, then only a single WAN on the Balance One will be actively used for VPN.
We’re looking to add the site to site VPN at our second office for administering an access control system at the new location. Would the VPN connection to our B305 be able to use the same WAN connection/external IP address as the one currently being used by remote users (whom we’ll soon be requiring RADIUS for authentication)? Basically IP address a.b.c.d. for the site to site and remote users?
Yes, it is possible to use the same WAN IP address for both remote access and site to site VPNs.