Serious need of these features


#1

Guys,

We have some limitations on Peplink OS which we have mentioned since 2010 and it’s annoying, so please consider them seriously and I’m sure others are agree on these feature requests:

1- Limitation on the number of groups in Bandwidth Management should be removed or extended.

2- Multiple object in one single Rule/Policy (eg: multiple source, destination, protocol in one rule)

3- Redirecting to dashboard each time clicking on the “Apply” is annoying.

4- Router should mention a warning message on the dashboard in many cases such as when one of the WAN links and the LAN side have IP address in the same subnet or when the maximum number of sessions is going to be exceeded.

5- Showing the total number of the sessions and users in the dashboard is very useful, also ability to limit them. we had situations that router hangs because of the maximum number of the sessions has been exceeded due to the growing number of users or a network Virus/Trojan.

6- Ability to connect/disconnect PepVPN/SF profiles from within the dashboard or temporary suspend them.

7- “Packet loss” and “Latency check/cut-off” for Internet connections just like what we have for SF. because we had many cases that quality of a WAN link drops and affects the network so you have to manually check and find it and manually disconnect the poor WAN link until you solve the issue with the ISP.

8- Add the feature for Geographically-Based routing in outbound policy. this is useful for example when you want to route all IP addresses belongs to a country to one specific WAN or SF tunnel. very helpful when mixing Internet WAN and Intra-net WAN.

9- Complete report in Peplink or Incontorl for users usage (web sites visited, applications used, etc)

Please consider the above seriously.

Thanks/Hootan


#2

I agree with several of your points; mainly 1, 2, and 3. I would add one more to your list:

10- OpenVPN support. This is by far the feature I’m looking forward to the most.


#3

+1 for OpenVPN support. SpeedFusion handles site to site but site to client, L2TP PPTP just doesn’t cut it. Unless we’ll see a SpeedFusion client for Windows/Mac/iOS/Android OpenVPN is the next best step I think.


#4

i would like a speedfusion client, that would be awesome, i think your subject is too vague to attract attention. my suggestion is to create a new thread for each feature, this way, peplink engineering can reply accordingly.


#5

@kevin L2TP/IPsec is a “site to client” protocol, and virtually all end devices have this built-in. Can you advise why it is not better/equal to OpenVPN?


#6

The main concern that I’ve heard from customers is that L2TP w/IPsec is slow because of the double encapsulation of data. The other issue is it uses port 500 which is easily blocked so from some networks the connection can’t be established. OpenVPN on the other hand uses port 443 so unless a router is blocking all HTTPS traffic, it should always work.


#7

Yes ease of setup and use and being virtually indistinguishable from HTTPS traffic makes OpenVPN work well for us and probably why its so popular.

We run open vpn servers on pfSense and Synology and it works great.


#8

I agree for 1,2,7,9. 1,2 have been asked for a long time now.