Pertino - Is Anyone Successfully Using Any Version Above 510 with DNS/AD Connect?
-
What are you using gateway appliances to supply connectivity to?
-
@Dashrender said:
What are you using gateway appliances to supply connectivity to?
Fileservers, ShoreTel Server, AV server, Printers etc.
-
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
What are you using gateway appliances to supply connectivity to?
Fileservers, ShoreTel Server, AV server, Printers etc.
Are those appliances you can't install Pertino/ZT onto directly?
OK Printers I understand, but other than remote management, why would you need to connect to them on a Pertino/ZT network?
-
@Dashrender To push out updates for AV clients and for ShoreTel, the use of "softphones" for external sales personnel.
-
@Dashrender said:
I ran into problems with ZT and DNS as well - but I didn't deploy ZT everywhere - nor did I want to.
That's really a problem with design, not with ZT or DNS then, right?
-
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender To push out updates for AV clients and for ShoreTel, the use of "softphones" for external sales personnel.
Put the server for the softphones elsewhere for the external guys?
-
@Breffni-Potter It also has to be accessible on the LAN for all of the ShoreTel equipment and local IP phones
-
@scottalanmiller I saw that for the clients that did not have ZT installed on them, I would get DNS responses with the ZT IP addresses, effectively breaking DNS. I don't want to have to install ZT on every single system both client and server, as I don't with Pertino either.
-
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller I saw that for the clients that did not have ZT installed on them, I would get DNS responses with the ZT IP addresses, effectively breaking DNS. I don't want to have to install ZT on every single system both client and server, as I don't with Pertino either.
You can "not want to", but you are using the wrong kind of technology. The issue with DNS not working is misuse, not the product. It's fine to want that, but that's exactly how these technologies are not meant to be used. Of course it's going to cause issues.
But then there is the question of why do you not "want" it? What's causing that desire yet keeping the desire to use "deploy everywhere" products?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I ran into problems with ZT and DNS as well - but I didn't deploy ZT everywhere - nor did I want to.
That's really a problem with design, not with ZT or DNS then, right?
I never said it was with ZT, just with my experience with ZT.
I'm guessing life would have been fine if I would have deployed ZT it all 110 of my endpoints so that my one very temporarily mobile (home) user could connect. That situation gave me an excuse to give ZT a try, and for my situation it didn't work well at all because of DNS issues - my file server had two IPs in DNS, and my non ZT clients were constantly getting the ZT address from DNS and I couldn't stop the ZT NIC from registering with DNS.
Again, wholistically, ZT is probably fine.
-
@Dashrender said:
I never said it was with ZT, just with my experience with ZT.
It's very misleading to say that your experience with ZT is that DNS does not work when it hasn't been fully deployed yet.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing life would have been fine if I would have deployed ZT it all 110 of my endpoints so that my one very temporarily mobile (home) user could connect. That situation gave me an excuse to give ZT a try, and for my situation it didn't work well at all because of DNS issues - my file server had two IPs in DNS, and my non ZT clients were constantly getting the ZT address from DNS and I couldn't stop the ZT NIC from registering with DNS.
Again, wholistically, ZT is probably fine.
What was the driver to not fully finish deploying ZT to see if it worked?
-
@scottalanmiller I totally get your point. I understand that the way to remedy that is for you to install ZT on every system. My reason for not pursuing ZT for the company is what is required for ZT to work- installing ZT on every system.
-
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender To push out updates for AV clients and for ShoreTel, the use of "softphones" for external sales personnel.
What about moving to a LANless design?
For example, my AV is now cloud based (has been for 5+ years). The agent checks in with the cloud provider for updates and reporting of incidents - local LAN like thing not required.
As for your softphones - again, LANless design - secure, then publish your PBX directly online so softphones can work from anywhere. If your PBX can't be secured, I guess that would be a no go.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing life would have been fine if I would have deployed ZT it all 110 of my endpoints so that my one very temporarily mobile (home) user could connect. That situation gave me an excuse to give ZT a try, and for my situation it didn't work well at all because of DNS issues - my file server had two IPs in DNS, and my non ZT clients were constantly getting the ZT address from DNS and I couldn't stop the ZT NIC from registering with DNS.
Again, wholistically, ZT is probably fine.
What was the driver to not fully finish deploying ZT to see if it worked?
Because I only had one mobile user who needed a remote access solution for 30 days. After that I didn't need the solution any longer. and sure, while ZT shouldn't cause any problems with everyone on the same LAN, It seems like unnecessary overhead.
If mobile access was part of my users daily life - then I would change my tune in a second..
-
@Dashrender said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender To push out updates for AV clients and for ShoreTel, the use of "softphones" for external sales personnel.
What about moving to a LANless design?
For example, my AV is now cloud based (has been for 5+ years). The agent checks in with the cloud provider for updates and reporting of incidents - local LAN like thing not required.
As for your softphones - again, LANless design - secure, then publish your PBX directly online so softphones can work from anywhere. If your PBX can't be secured, I guess that would be a no go.
This is something I had been considering and I look every time my AV renewal comes around. I was considering Vipre right before GFI bought them out. Looks like a dodged a bullet. Currently using TrendMicro but maybe considering Cylance.
-
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender To push out updates for AV clients and for ShoreTel, the use of "softphones" for external sales personnel.
What about moving to a LANless design?
For example, my AV is now cloud based (has been for 5+ years). The agent checks in with the cloud provider for updates and reporting of incidents - local LAN like thing not required.
As for your softphones - again, LANless design - secure, then publish your PBX directly online so softphones can work from anywhere. If your PBX can't be secured, I guess that would be a no go.
This is something I had been considering and I look every time my AV renewal comes around. I was considering Vipre right before GFI bought them out. Looks like a dodged a bullet. Currently using TrendMicro but maybe considering Cylance.
So you're in that 250 endpoint or greater range, eh?
-
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller I totally get your point. I understand that the way to remedy that is for you to install ZT on every system. My reason for not pursuing ZT for the company is what is required for ZT to work- installing ZT on every system.
Out of curiosity, what's the downside to that? Why not deploy everywhere? Why struggle with other solutions just to avoid full deployment?
-
Give Webroot a try. Really great team and product.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing life would have been fine if I would have deployed ZT it all 110 of my endpoints so that my one very temporarily mobile (home) user could connect. That situation gave me an excuse to give ZT a try, and for my situation it didn't work well at all because of DNS issues - my file server had two IPs in DNS, and my non ZT clients were constantly getting the ZT address from DNS and I couldn't stop the ZT NIC from registering with DNS.
Again, wholistically, ZT is probably fine.
What was the driver to not fully finish deploying ZT to see if it worked?
Because I only had one mobile user who needed a remote access solution for 30 days. After that I didn't need the solution any longer. and sure, while ZT shouldn't cause any problems with everyone on the same LAN, It seems like unnecessary overhead.
If mobile access was part of my users daily life - then I would change my tune in a second..
Okay for 30 days, that makes sense.
