SoftEther VPN User Forum

Soft Ether VPN has been an extremely useful tool and so far I have not experienced any major issues with it.
If possible I would like to be able to send out the client already pre-programmed with the user's name as well as all the necessary settings in place so that the Virtual Adapter is configured correctly without needing any input from the end user.

This would include the correct server name, username, password, etc. everything set such that they only need to clik it once to run. Once the VON is established, the first step needed is to map a drive latter to a folder on the server. It would be grate if this could all be included in a single script maybe with Net use to make the drive letter.
This is to be setup for use on a Windows Server and back before ISP's began blocking port 445 it was a faily simple matter using just the normal Windows VPN and the people who used it became accustomed to a "hands off" approach. Mostly because they had no idea what they were doing, :( or how to accomplish it.

The setup for Soft Ether is a Breeze and I have had zero problems so far getting it to work but it would be nice if i could go back to sending them a single script along with the Client software which would preset all the necessary configurations as well as create the Shortcut for it on their desktop.

But if there is a way to make this totally "foolproof" needing no entries at all from the Client user, it would make my life easier. I thought perhaps there would be a configuration file i cold have al the setting preloaded into?

Thanks for a Fantastic Product.
As for the comments from others regarding what we used to refer to as an "open-ended" VPN, This to allow the Client users to be able to access the Internet from their own system rathert than having those calls also sent through the VPN. I would be interested in knowing if there is a way to accomplish this in Windows 8. It wasn't hard to do Windows XP and even Windows 7. but windows 8.1 seems to have some major differences in the network config which might make it difficult. In earlier versions of Windows it was simply a matter of going into the IPV4 Properties and advanced settings to uncheck the option to use the default gateway on the remote network.

What you end up with is not a virtual PRIVATE network since one end is open to access to the internet but it did allow the users to have full use of their own Internet connection while at the same time being connected to the server at the other end of the VPN.

I have not had enough users connected a the same time yet to be able to tell the speed difference but i am sure it will show up at some point and i have not yet looked to see if this same option is available on the Virtual VPN
adapter

'

You can make a customized installation package with softether's built-in tool. The package could have all configuration built-in except the username/passwd.

It's in the "Softher"-->"Administrative Tools"-->"Easy Installer Creator".

Many thanks for that info.
Soft Ether was a last minute answer to a very extreme problem and so far it has been more than I expected!

Setup and management seems to be so well thought through that my worst problems have been realizing that there are none. I have become a bit "hyper worried" due to so many bad experiences with previous solutions all of which left out critical information until i had already gotten too far along to change.

Or worse, in some cases, even the makers had no idea why it did what it did.

The need for its use is very simple, to allow outside employees to have access to their files stored on the server while traveling or at home. In one specific case, the files MUST be kept in such a way as to make the location appear to windows as a Mapped drive letter. Nothing else works for the ol program that calls for the files. It can ONLY look at S:\ and no other way works.

Windows One-drive can do that "Sometimes" in "Some Circumstances" but it is more like and FTP server than anything else.

The only problem i am having currently is that all connections appear to have a very slow connect speed compared to what I used to get through Windows VPN even though we have a pretty good High speed Internet connection and I am certain that the problem is related to the "rush job" i did just to get us up and online without taking time to thoroughly "read the manual": Always a Bad Idea!

I hope that until i have time to do that, there might be something obvious that I need to change to get the best performance. One of these may be that I am running everything on a single Network Interface and shoul;d be using two?

The Server is Windows 2008 R2 x64 is on the "IN-side" of a Router. The router is a Net-gear Nighthawk Gigabit unit,. It came with a "built-in VPN" but after getting it all up and running I find out after the fact that it can only support 4 simultaneous connections.

We have a Static IP so the need for DynDNS is not there but it is an excellent touch for those who need it. Ii noticed that the service was active and wondered if that was necessary since we will always have that same IP.
Though it would make it possible to have a "fall-back" server at another IP should the need arise. If it doesn't HURT anything then I suppose I should keep it enabled for future possible use.

The reason i asked was that drive mapping to the UNC of the server vs the using the server IP address has been one thing I noticed and was not sure which is best to use with Soft-ether.. I have had both working in most cases (or rather I TESTED both but stuck with one or the other) Some systems appear to connect with one method and not the other.

I have also run into the "only one connection to the same server by the same user" thing with Windows when trying to map a drive letter to to more than one shared folder.

There are a total of 38 VPN clients though probably never more than 10 or so connected at once. Throughput in some cases I have seen as low as 90 Kbps rather than anything close to what it should be and wondered what would be the most likely cause (IF the cause is as my end)

The NAT Transversal is a Great thing and is probably the only reason it worked in my case as we had tried so many things prior to Soft-ether than I am sure something is still "in the way". The primary listening port of 443 i do have forwarded to the server (along with 4 others) but I only can get connections using the others. 443 (I think) is tied up by a failed attempt to use IIS for creating an FTP server that is still somehow holding that port.

Net-stat does show that port listening by the server but not specifically by Soft-ether.
One question here would be if it could improve traffic speeds if i dedicated a single port per client or just let it all come through on the ones I already opened.

One other thing of note is that this server is also used as a SQL server with connections through a dedicated port as well.
The traffic is not that high on anything outside the building though and I am at a loss to explain why the outside speeds should be so low. Inside the office on the Intranet, speeds are very high connecting to the same system on the wired network with both server and workstation and router all being rated for 1000 Mbps.

Sorry to be so long winded but I am always afraid of not supplying enough information to allow anyone to see the problem. If anything in all of this stands out, please let me know.

Thanks so much for such a great product.

Mike

I think CIFS is not efficient in high latency.
Try to use HTTP access like IIS.