logo

The ConnectWise Control forum has moved to ConnectWise University! This forum has been locked and is in read-only mode. Click here for instructions on how to access the new forum.

Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
nsossonko  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:51:00 PM(UTC)
nsossonko


Rank: Newbie

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 1/28/2015(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States
Location: Miami

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
This would be save bandwidth of constantly going between the relay, eg:

Host->Relay->Client->Relay->Host

instead

Host<->Client

Do initial negotiation/communication via the relay then allow direct communication, similar to how SIP does this with STUN servers and the RTP stream.

nsossonko  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:00:49 PM(UTC)
nsossonko


Rank: Newbie

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 1/28/2015(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States
Location: Miami

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Anyway we can get this on the radar? This would significantly help with bandwidth issues in scenarios where:

1. host and guest are on different networks, server is on the same as either one
2. host and server are on different networks, guest is on the same as either one
3. All are on different networks
Stefan  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:55:08 PM(UTC)
Stefan


Rank: Advanced Member

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 2/14/2013(UTC)
Posts: 66
Man
Germany
Location: Germany

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
+1

good idea!
John S  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:01:22 PM(UTC)
John S


Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/6/2011(UTC)
Posts: 56
Location: Essex UK

Thanks: 3 times
+1
XiteHosting  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:31:20 PM(UTC)
XiteHosting


Rank: Advanced Member

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 9/23/2013(UTC)
Posts: 33
Location: Belgium

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
The whole point of using the relay is so that on the client there is only an outgoing connection (no firewall issues)
and on the technician's pc there is also only an outgoing connection (no firewall issue).

When both people are on the same network, this would be doable.
Only the pc firewall would have to be changed. Altough, I would like SC to change as little as possible on a client pc

But when on different networks, this wouldn't work anyway.
NJH.siii  
#6 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 6:53:59 PM(UTC)
NJH.siii


Rank: Advanced Member

Medals: Bug Buster Level One: Spoon!Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 3/3/2015(UTC)
Posts: 60
Man
United Kingdom
Location: Bristol

Thanks: 29 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 4 post(s)
I know next to nothing, but it strikes me that if SIP operates in the manner suggested by the OP; then this should be possible.

If it is possible; then count me in +1.
Nigel
FAB-ITRescue
rgreen83  
#7 Posted : Monday, March 16, 2015 3:47:35 PM(UTC)
rgreen83


Rank: Advanced Member

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 2/16/2015(UTC)
Posts: 69
United States
Location: Missouri

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
This is how redirectors work in labtech and they are not nearly as fast or reliable as SC, also SIP is not all that reliable either as those with Enterprise Voice could attest.

The better solution is not not make connections from outside the local network of the SC server. We host a terminal server local to the SC server and remote in to the TS when we need to work from outside the office. More often than not you will need RMM, CRM, other access anyways which is all also more accessible if they are on that same local network as well.
nsossonko  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 6:46:41 PM(UTC)
nsossonko


Rank: Newbie

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 1/28/2015(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States
Location: Miami

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Originally Posted by: XiteHosting Go to Quoted Post
The whole point of using the relay is so that on the client there is only an outgoing connection (no firewall issues)
and on the technician's pc there is also only an outgoing connection (no firewall issue).

When both people are on the same network, this would be doable.
Only the pc firewall would have to be changed. Altough, I would like SC to change as little as possible on a client pc

But when on different networks, this wouldn't work anyway.


Once there is a session initiated, there is no issue with the incoming firewall. Similar to the multitude of client-server connections in browsers that work because the initial request was made by the client to the server. Besides, the application can control (or at least request) firewall exception if absolutely necessary so that the only issue remaining would be understanding the correct IP:port over which to communicate.

This is similar to STUN servers for SIP communication, which works very well.
nsossonko  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, March 17, 2015 6:49:35 PM(UTC)
nsossonko


Rank: Newbie

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 1/28/2015(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States
Location: Miami

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Originally Posted by: rgreen83 Go to Quoted Post
This is how redirectors work in labtech and they are not nearly as fast or reliable as SC, also SIP is not all that reliable either as those with Enterprise Voice could attest.

The better solution is not not make connections from outside the local network of the SC server. We host a terminal server local to the SC server and remote in to the TS when we need to work from outside the office. More often than not you will need RMM, CRM, other access anyways which is all also more accessible if they are on that same local network as well.


SIP is very reliable and is used all over the world now. You must have experience with poor equipment or inadequate providers. Regarding redirectors in labtech, not sure what they are or how they work, but that's, again, an implementation problem. I just don't see how Guest->Relay<-Host can EVER be faster than direct Guest<->Host communication.
rgreen83  
#10 Posted : Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:54:21 PM(UTC)
rgreen83


Rank: Advanced Member

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 2/16/2015(UTC)
Posts: 69
United States
Location: Missouri

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
With remote sessions using between 10-100 kbps I still would think if you can't spare that bandwidth that you should be using a terminal server local to the screenconnect server. Also if nothing is connected to the SC server after session setup how does audit logging work? How does the toolbox work?

Regardless this could always be a menu option that could be chosen after connecting the session like "Switch to direct connection", so I will +1 :)
huoni  
#11 Posted : Thursday, April 2, 2015 1:07:19 AM(UTC)
huoni


Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/4/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2
Australia
Location: Melbourne

Whilst I get there are firewall issues, I think initiating a direct connection when Host and Guest are on the same LAN would be a start. Our Server is in a colocation center and to connect to a guest on the LAN, the connection goes over the WAN twice.

So +1.

Edited by user Thursday, April 2, 2015 1:07:52 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Jeff  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:46:29 AM(UTC)
Jeff


Rank: Administration

Medals: Level 4: Wise Old Owl! Received 100 Thanks!

Joined: 4/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,785
Man
Location: Raleigh, NC

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 156 time(s) in 122 post(s)
So all good and pretty valid points. The concept of peer to peer is not lost on us, but it comes down to some extent to location. For example a tech in New York with his installation in New York working with customer in New York is going to basically have same performance on peer-peer as he will routing data through server unless server installation location has a really poor asynchronous up-down bandwidth setup and even then it should still be pretty good.

Think about drawing the line from tech through server to customer and then from tech to customer and measure that in miles or kilometers? Is there a big difference? If so then peer-peer would potentially offer some benefits if its close to the same the improvements are typically going to be negligible. A good example would be an office in New York using a server in Europe (headquarters maybe) to support customers in California. That would not be ideal. But server in New York along side the techs and then bouncing to California would be basically the same either way. Again with some considerations around up-down speeds, hosting computer performance, etc.

Biggest impact area is network quality. For example packet loss somewhere in the chain would create way more issues than routing through a server location hundreds or thousands of miles away from the tech location.

But peer-peer is on my wish list assuming it makes sense technically. I will add all the +1's.


ScreenConnect Team
thanks 1 user thanked Jeff for this useful post.
nsossonko on 4/22/2015(UTC)
nsossonko  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:05:34 PM(UTC)
nsossonko


Rank: Newbie

Medals: Level 1: Random Act of Kindness! Received One Thanks!

Joined: 1/28/2015(UTC)
Posts: 8
United States
Location: Miami

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Jeff,

Thanks for the positive response. The scenario we are faced with in our Organization that prompted this request is: we have some satellite offices with 10-20 employees (sometimes a bit more) that are serviced by our central headquarters IT-wise. Unfortunately, a lot of these offices have poor internet connections and the cost of round-tripping to the relay server constantly degrades performance for local techs at the satellite branch. So, tech at a satellite branch on the same gigabit network as the clients (the branch offices are dispersed, which is why the techs would rather attempt to fix issues via Screen Connect) has very poor performance using Screen Connect over our headquarters relay.

It doesn't make sense for us to purchase an entirely separate system, but if we could directly connect our hosts and clients, this issue would be non-existent. Yes, I am aware there are other viable tools available for in-network remote access, but Screen Connect is our favorite overall remoting tool and works very well, so I'd rather not have separate in-network remote software and out-of-network...

I guess if there would be multi-server capability this would go away to some extent (although I'd still have some remote branches where I have no servers AT ALL and this wouldn't help), but the direct connection would be a big plus for us.
SpencerM  
#14 Posted : Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:36:18 PM(UTC)
SpencerM


Rank: Newbie

Joined: 3/5/2014(UTC)
Posts: 3
Canada

+1 from me on this one too. We operate in multiple cities and sometimes really struggle with reliable connections.
Mike  
#15 Posted : Monday, October 26, 2015 4:11:36 PM(UTC)
Mike


Rank: Administration

Medals: Level 3: Shirt off your back! Received 25 Thanks!

Joined: 5/30/2012(UTC)
Posts: 501
Location: Raleigh, NC

Thanks: 56 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 68 post(s)
Thanks for your post. I'll be happy to put your support for a direct connection, but I would also encourage you to call our support team. They can help troubleshoot your environment to make sure, if you're using an on premise server, we're getting the best connection possible.
ScreenConnect Team
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.