[REQ] SSTP, L2TP, PPPoE, OVPN, PPTP Server Binding Template

Hey,

So I have a bunch of road warriors that use VPN connections. Generally I use SSTP/L2TP, but really this request would be useful for all of the connection types. I know that it is possible to create a “server binding” for a specific user and then use that interface in firewall rules, etc. This is fine for a small number of users, but it gets bulky for large numbers of users. What would be really useful is a feature similar to the IPSec Policy Templates, but for Server Bindings. A way to have a class of users or a template that could be created and then referenced in the firewall etc. This way I could allow a set of users easy access to certain resources.

As an example suppose I have a set of users (user1, user2, … usern). In the current system if I want to reference their “server interface” I have to create server bindings for all of the users individually (l2tp-server-user1, … l2tp-server-usern). What I am requesting would allow me to create a single l2tp-server-users that would allow me to reference all of them. This way if I also had a set of admin users (auser1, auser2, …, auserm), I could then create a binding l2tp-server-ausers and use that to allow access to that group to a set of resources. This means I could create complex firewall rules, etc using the server binding interfaces while only actually creating two “template” or “class” bindings instead of one per user (or in this case n+m).

Does this request make sense? Anyone else have thoughts?

-Eric

I think that this level of organization and abstraction is what the v7 routing engine will allow for.

Sweet. It would make managing my different types of VPN users easier.

You can achieve this using address lists

Only the firewalling part. Not routing rules or anything else I could use the interface for.

Maybe you could accomplish what you need with scripting or api commands.

I most likely could, but that is why its a feature request. It would just be nice if I could refer to a group of users.

Would like to see this feature to.

Instead of Users, maybe the use of profiles or usergroups would be an easy implantation.