MPLS alternative
-
Just happened to think back,
The emergency system (911) used MPLS between the county sites and the main server.
How would a VPN have replaced this? Down time is one thing, but down time and no ability to get emergency calls passed,... that’s serious
-
-
Also the entire internet is a mesh of sorts.
There are multiple ways to go from point A to point B if you are connected the right way.
-
I don't know much about MPLS except that even with redundant links the entire connection goes down if the company that runs it has a problem. So it's some kind of half-redundancy.
For real redundancy you need to have multiple links using different operators.
-
@gjacobse said in MPLS alternative:
Just happened to think back,
The emergency system (911) used MPLS between the county sites and the main server.
How would a VPN have replaced this? Down time is one thing, but down time and no ability to get emergency calls passed,... that’s serious
Well, you already have a SPOF in the MPLS. MPLS does not provide any redundancy. A backhoe cutting the ISP lines still takes them down.
If the people running the 911 system wanted redundancy, they'd need two internet connections of some sort.
-
@travisdh1 said in MPLS alternative:
@gjacobse said in MPLS alternative:
Just happened to think back,
The emergency system (911) used MPLS between the county sites and the main server.
How would a VPN have replaced this? Down time is one thing, but down time and no ability to get emergency calls passed,... that’s serious
Well, you already have a SPOF in the MPLS. MPLS does not provide any redundancy. A backhoe cutting the ISP lines still takes them down.
If the people running the 911 system wanted redundancy, they'd need two internet connections of some sort.
There is a lot of redundancy built in- it’s an absolute must. And yes, a backhoe, homeowner and even Mother Nature will play havoc...
-
@Dashrender said in MPLS alternative:
You serve Citrix directly on the internet, Citrix's protocol ICA includes encryption. Sending ICA over VPN is double encryption.
This is one thing management have never liked. Opening the server to the outside world
.
But times are changing so going a mix of VPN for some serves and direct serve (i.e. on the internet) might be an option. -
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
How would multiple vpns be handled. Would it be a case each sites router would have multiple vpns to each site? Or a single VPN to a singe "master" site/device.
To make it simple, I'd do Each site's router would have a single VPN to HQ (the master site).
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
If we didn't have VPN/MPLS how would we serve our Citrix farm at the main site?
Directly. Citrix has no need for additional VPN/MPLS since the Citrix IPC protocol has the same security as a VPN already. You can't just tied it to AD, but that's a different issue. Citrix isn't meant to be used behind a VPN, that's an unnecessary layer of complication. You need some sort of protection, but neither of these do much to address the fundamental security flaw involved nor are they elegant solutions.
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
@scottalanmiller said in MPLS alternative:
These are things you never want. "Managed"
This I kind of disagree with, if we have an issue with a connection we phone it in and they sort withing the SLA. Down time means £££ loss.
Currently with the MPLS we have 4hr replacement on hardware and high SLA with BT on the pstn lines.Those are EXACTLY the reasons that I said what I said. SLAs and four hours of waiting to "maybe" have things fixed at super high cost, instead of a more reliable system at lower cost.
Remember "4 hr replacement" doesn't say that they WILL replace in 4hrs, it just tells you what they pay you if they don't. Very, VERY different from "keeping your business running."
The MPLS needs that SLA because it's so risky. If you didn't have the MPLS, you wouldn't have the same risks. That's part of the trick. Create the risk so that they can sell you the fix as well!
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
@scottalanmiller said in MPLS alternative:
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
3 sites have 20+ users these are served by 100mb leased lines, would like to keep these.
Why would you ever want a leased line? Leased lines essentially only exist today to make MPLS possible. They are costly and risky.
Because we "couldn't" get a line above 5mb so Replication to the DR site would be impossible. Also handling the traffic from all the sites, like print servers, smb shares etc
(most of these are getting replaced slowly with things like o365)Anything you can get in a leased line you can get in an Internet line for the same or cheaper. Leased lines aren't magic, they are just the same lines without Internet access.
All that traffic from the sites can be handled by normal VPNs. But that begs the question, why are you doing things like printing over the WAN in the first place? Or SMB shares over the WAN? These are LAN-focused, 1990s technologies. I get that things linger, but this feels more and more like one basic mistake that no one evaluated and then piling mistakes on top of that layer after layer. None of it matches anything remotely modern, secure, or affordable but each mistake relies on another mistake as the excuse for itself.
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
So what about SDWAN? Would this be an alternative too?
SDWAN is just a marketing term for managed VPN. So as a technology, it's just VPN which we said to use. But if you mean a product from the ISP that they call SDWAN, then see the "never, ever get any service like this from the ISP" advice.
Remember, if it's managed, it's bad. There's no way to have an exception to this. Market pressure would never allow it.
-
@IRJ said in MPLS alternative:
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
@scottalanmiller said in MPLS alternative:
1990's LAN-based thinking. Modern networks with security are zero-trust (aka LANless) in design and VPN/MPLS would not serve any purpose.
I'll put my hand up and agree this is me, but will be looking at LANless/zero-trust on Monday and learn what it means fully.
Yeah that's really the only route to go anymore
And it's not new, we've been talking about it here since day one and it wasn't new then. I know companies doing this for close to two decades now. And that means companies I don't know were way ahead of the curve.
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
Any link to good reading on zero-trust stuff?
MangoCon 2016. One of the three most viewed MC talks ever.
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
@Dashrender said in MPLS alternative:
You serve Citrix directly on the internet, Citrix's protocol ICA includes encryption. Sending ICA over VPN is double encryption.
This is one thing management have never liked. Opening the server to the outside world
.
But times are changing so going a mix of VPN for some serves and direct serve (i.e. on the internet) might be an option.Another fundamental flaw of the business in general: "management have never liked." Management's job here is to make sure that "what is good for the business" is what is chosen, not what someone "likes" emotionally. An emotional manager is a saboteur. They have no place in IT or business. Their job is to protect against this, not do it themselves. This is like the security card stealing from the till. It's doing exactly the thing that they are paid to protect against. In one case it is stealing, in the other it is illogical and reckless decision making.
It's nothing to do with the times changing. It's about common myths being finally exposed often enough. ICA has always, or at least for a really long time been secure. But people constantly misconfiguring it is the issue, not the protocol. You know what else is a huge risk from misconfiguration? VPNs and MPLS!!
-
@dafyre said in MPLS alternative:
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
How would multiple vpns be handled. Would it be a case each sites router would have multiple vpns to each site? Or a single VPN to a singe "master" site/device.
To make it simple, I'd do Each site's router would have a single VPN to HQ (the master site).
AKA hub and spoke.
-
@Pete-S said in MPLS alternative:
I don't know much about MPLS except that even with redundant links the entire connection goes down if the company that runs it has a problem. So it's some kind of half-redundancy.
For real redundancy you need to have multiple links using different operators.
Exactly. MPLS is for companies who don't care about reliability. It's the polar opposite of reliable. Everything about it is unnecessarily fragile and risky.
I know Fortune 100s that have it and it's 99% the cause of their downtime. It fails way more often than any other link, and it takes way longer to fix than any other link. Bigger outages, more often. Plus high cost. The worst of all worlds.
-
@gjacobse said in MPLS alternative:
Just happened to think back,
The emergency system (911) used MPLS between the county sites and the main server.
How would a VPN have replaced this? Down time is one thing, but down time and no ability to get emergency calls passed,... that’s serious
Well, since a VPN beats an MPLS is every way... any risk you have with the MPLS is reduced with a VPN. So there's nothing for VPN to do. If MPLS is acceptable, literally anything is acceptable. There's nothing worse.
-
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
@Dashrender said in MPLS alternative:
You serve Citrix directly on the internet, Citrix's protocol ICA includes encryption. Sending ICA over VPN is double encryption.
This is one thing management have never liked. Opening the server to the outside world
.
But times are changing so going a mix of VPN for some serves and direct serve (i.e. on the internet) might be an option.They are missing the point then... the VPN is exposed directly to the web...why is it better than the Citrix server?
-
@Dashrender said in MPLS alternative:
@hobbit666 said in MPLS alternative:
@Dashrender said in MPLS alternative:
You serve Citrix directly on the internet, Citrix's protocol ICA includes encryption. Sending ICA over VPN is double encryption.
This is one thing management have never liked. Opening the server to the outside world
.
But times are changing so going a mix of VPN for some serves and direct serve (i.e. on the internet) might be an option.They are missing the point then... the VPN is exposed directly to the web...why is it better than the Citrix server?
Well, so here is what happens....
Someone accidentally ties the Citrix ICA authentication to AD. They then expose AD to the Internet. They then realize that AD depends on LAN security and the mechanisms that work on a LAN are useless on the WAN and they disable them. Then they are exposed not because ICA is risky, not because the Internet is scary, but because AD is fragile and a bad overall security mechanism and totally unable to be used without the addition of a trusted LAN space (e.g. simply not very secure.)
Instead of learning from their mistakes (of using the wrong technology, AD in this case, and configuring Citrix wrong) they double down on their mistakes by trying to use a VPN, which is exactly the same security technology as Citrix ICA, but typically don't tie this to AD and voila, they think that the VPN fixed their previous mistake that they never took time to figure out.
It's a standard pattern of incompetence that happens so often (much like the Inverted Pyramid design) that one clueless shop repeats this story to another clueless shop and they get agreement that the same thing happened to them and you start to get people corroborating each other's incorrect theories and soon it becomes Internet myth.
