Thoughts on a Ubiquiti/Cisco comparo?
-
This is the basic VPN config, if that makes a difference:
ADDR
Call server 192.168.*****
VPN
General
VPN Enabled
VPN Vendor Other
Gateway Address… *****
Encapsulation 4500 – 4500
Copy TOS No
Auth. Type
Auth. Type PSK
IKE PSK
IKE ID (Group Name)… *****
Pre Shared Key (PSK) *****
IKE Phase 1
IKE ID Type FQDN
IKE Xchg Mode Aggressive
IKE DH Group 2
IKE Encryption Alg 3DES
IKE Auth. Alg. SHA-1
IKE Config. Mode Disabled
IKE Phase 2
IPsec PFS DH Group 2
IPsec Encryption Alg 3DES
IPsec Auth. Alg. SHA-1
Protected Network… 192.168.*****
IKE Over TCP
IKE Over TCP Never -
Looks like IPSEC... you should be good to replace the router with an Ubiquti.
-
Definitely IPSEC, should be fun getting them to talk to each other.
-
@coliver said in Thoughts on a Ubiquiti/Cisco comparo?:
I think the answer is yes to all of these questions. Cisco does use a proprietary VPN for the client connections but, if I remember correctly, their site-to-site stuff is using IPSEC or L2TP.
Ya I've done site-to-site with IPsec between an ERL and a Cisco.
-
That is just standard IPSEC form the looks. I would not expect a problem assuming all sides are on a static WAN IP.
-
Why do you have a SonicWall handling the things for the VOIP? Was this split out on purpose?
-
@Dashrender said in Thoughts on a Ubiquiti/Cisco comparo?:
Why do you have a SonicWall handling the things for the VOIP? Was this split out on purpose?
He doesn't. This is obviously an in place system from before they were a client.
-
@JaredBusch said in Thoughts on a Ubiquiti/Cisco comparo?:
@Dashrender said in Thoughts on a Ubiquiti/Cisco comparo?:
Why do you have a SonicWall handling the things for the VOIP? Was this split out on purpose?
He doesn't. This is obviously an in place system from before they were a client.
You can always be sure that any SonicWall is from pre-NTG
Cisco you might see with us, Meraki possibly, but those are definitely on the uncommon side. But SonicWall, I don't think you'll ever see that. -
While you both might have read an assumed NTG installed the SonicWall, let me just tell you both, that wasn't what I said, or trying to say.
I was asking - why was the SonicWall installed at all? Why did that traffic need to be split out in such a way that it couldn't be handled by the Cisco?
Perhaps the answer is - that was before our time, so we have no clue.
I was just asking.
-
This is just a project. What's the line? "Not my circus, not my monkeys"?
-
@art_of_shred said in Thoughts on a Ubiquiti/Cisco comparo?:
This is just a project. What's the line? "Not my circus, not my monkeys"?
I think it goes "not my circus, not my Sonicwall".
