[Samba] Windows drive mapping using alternate port

[Bob Miller]

Hello,

> depends on the specific vpn solution you pick.  pretty sure they all
> some option like that

The term is split tunnelling.  not sure it works with openvpn, but any
l2tp/ipsec client should have it.

I have never tried to put so many users on a vpn simultaneously, but I
do have experience with inadequate internet connections for the tasks at
hand.  In the past I have used traffic control to make sure every one at
least suffers equally on a saturated connection...

> 
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Kris Springer
> <kspringer at innovateteam.com> wrote:
> > Unchecking such a box would be ideal and may solve my problem.  Where is
> > this checkbox found?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Kris
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Weiss [mailto:cweiss at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 12:11 PM
> > To: Kris Springer
> > Cc: Günter Kukkukk; samba
> > Subject: Re: [Samba] Windows drive mapping using alternate port
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Kris Springer <kspringer at innovateteam.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I've got 50 remote users possibly doubling in the next year.  The idea
> >> is to map a drive that they have easy and constant access to.  If I
> >> tell everyone to VPN then the traffic on my server's network will go
> >> through the roof since all traffic for everyone will route through the
> >> VPN and not their local networks for regular internet use.  Skype
> >> would become unusable as well as a few other things.  A VPN would be
> >> ideal if it were only a few users that accessed the shares
> >> intermittently, but for 50+ users with constant access it's not really
> >> feasible.  Is this starting to sound like a situation where remote
> >> access just isn't going to work?  Is Samba simply a local file sharing
> > server that isn't really useful in today's remote world?
> >> Is there some other alternative that someone could suggest?
> >>
> >
> > uncheck the "route all traffic through vpn" box.
> >