We have a rather conventional Windows shop with MS Server 2003 and corresponding Exchange services at a single site. We have some offsite (travelling laptops, stationary workstations) systems that are modern Windows-based.
We have a Cisco Router RV082 that purportedly supports VPNs. We bought this because it declared it addressed the VPN problem. We are looking for a VPN client that isn't full of trap doors. Cisco provides their own VPN client, which one would expect to be compatible with thier router, but we cannot discover how to make it work reliably; the Cisco website docs are pretty much useless, and user queries at their site are full of complaints about it not working with no responses from Cisco people. Finally, they claim support for this is ending. [How can they sell this stuff?]
We have one internal LAN connected to the MS server, a Linux http:// server, Cisco router, and 2 printers at fixed IP addresses (192.168.1.x) and modest number (~~20) DHCP-allocated IP-address workstations.
- A VPN client that we can install on laptops and systems outside our server LAN. Paid is OK if the price is modest.
- Client to enable file system access to our Windows Server.
- Client to enable http:// access to web servers on our local LAN (both the MS Server and the Linux box).
- Client to enable access to the fixed-IP address printers.
Does not add dependency on some 3rd party outside system or cloud.
Bonus points: resolves machine names on the LAN using MS name management protocols.
I'm astonished at how hard this seems to do. Is it the case the everybody else on the planet is capable of doing this and we just don't know how (I'd believe that)? If you've had good success, please respond with your solution.
Perhaps my problem isn't the VPN client; maybe it is just discovering how to get everything configured. If you don't have a recommendation for an easily configured (that means has good documentation about how to do it!) VPN client, then maybe a suggestion for where to look for appropriate documentation would be really useful (even if that's technically out of scope for SR).
EDIT with bounty still active:
All two of the answers provided so far seem to come with some kind of cloud dependency on the vendor. It appears that all the vendors are trying to insert some permanent dependency in our networks to make us pay an annual fee. I see how that works for them. The benefit to me seems pretty small, if not negative. Isn't all the VPN machinery already in our MS servers and Linux boxes? Why do I want to add yet another party to the process?
EDIT: Bounty awarded. It served its purpose in attracting a number of fairly interesting answers. It is unfortunate that none of them was an obvious hands-down winner; the best of the lot in my judgement still requires that I actually go fool with it to see if it passes the configurability tests and there was not time in the bounty window to do that. In this case I would have liked to split the bounty more or less equally across all the answers, but SE offers no way to do that. So I awarded the bounty to the one that looked the most promising.
However, I want to offer my thanks to all that responded.