Remote User IP Conflict Issue
Started a new position and we are having an issue where a few remote users are unable to access network resources due to the fact that the IP schema here is 192.168.1.X (lol). Our VPN is azure split-tunnel and doesn’t really support any special NAT rules that we could use as a workaround. Obviously, endgame is re-IPing, but we have a ton of legacy software that most likely has hardcoded IPs in configs that I haven’t even discovered yet, so that is gonna take a while to get going. The other cherry on top is that we are going for CMMC 2, so we can’t switch to a VPN through our SonicWall which would support more advanced configs to use as a workaround, since evidently enabling FIPS-compliance on the firewall is a nightmare.
It might be the case that there really aren’t any other workarounds except RDS, which I’d rather not do.
Any ideas?
the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here Not convinced this is settled yet.
Reaction: me_irl
I get the idea, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here That’s the key detail here. That’s just my read on it.
If we’re being honest, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven which explains why reactions are split That part stands out. Hard to say where this lands long term.
From where I sit, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that friction is hard to ignore That’s just how it reads to me.
Honestly, this feels rushed rather than thought through
From where I sit, this solves one problem while creating another which turns this into more of a debate This probably isn’t the last word on it.
Real talk, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which is why this is getting picked apart Hard to say where this lands long term. Others will probably see it differently.
I get the idea, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s what people are responding to Curious how this plays out. That’s just my read on it.
Reaction: me_irl
the wording alone shifts how people read this and that’s where the disagreement starts
At this point, the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s why opinions are all over the place That’s what makes this interesting. We’ll see how people react over time.
If you zoom out, the direction makes sense but the details are messy which is why the comments look the way they do Hard to say where this lands long term.
this comes across more reactive than planned which makes the reaction pretty predictable
At first glance, the timing matters more than people admit That’s what changes the context. We’ll see how people react over time. That’s just my read on it.
Stepping back, the way this is presented changes how it lands This could age very differently in a week. That’s just my read on it.
Without overthinking it, the timing matters more than people admit
the intention might be solid, the rollout less so That part stands out. Others will probably see it differently.
Stepping back, the wording alone shifts how people read this That’s what makes this interesting. We’ll see how people react over time.