Smart 1 Cloud setup as MSSP - Terminal Server access to multiple customers

[Richard_Orton]

Hi All, in the middle of migrating multiple customer domains from an on premise MDSM to Smart 1 Cloud. Smart 1 cloud is setup as an MSSP with customer tenants attached to this.

The problem we face is that we can’t access multiple customers simultaneously in Smart 1 Cloud as we do with the on premise MDSM. We use terminal servers for engineers to access MDSM (and now Smart 1 Cloud) and the problem comes when we have more than one person on a terminal server trying to connect to a different customer in Smart 1 Cloud. We cannot get a second connect from the same terminal server to the same or a second Smart 1 cloud customer.

When we use MDSM, we can have 6+ engineers using the terminal server, with 6 sessions to either the same or different customers with no problem.

Does anyone use Smart 1 Cloud in this way, or can think of a way to get it to work as we need it?

We have tried having a pool of public IP addresses we could hide the terminal server connections behind, by having a unique rule per customer. The problem here is that at least 2 of the customers we have setup are using the same public IP address, so we lose the ability to Source NAT the outbound traffic behind a different IP address.

[PhoneBoy]

I suspect the issue is related to the MaaS tunnel (Management as a Service) used for Smart-1 Cloud.
In any case, I'll ask around and see if this is something that can be fixed (or is in the plans to).

[Richard_Orton]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. 

[Richard_Orton]

Hi, just wondered if you'd had chance to ask about and see if its something to be fixed (or not) 

Thanks

[PhoneBoy]

While I am awaiting word from the relevant R&D team, have you opened a TAC case on this?

[PhoneBoy]

This does look similar to an existing open issue that we're planning to solve.
If you have not already done so, please open a TAC case.
Send me the SR in a PM and I will loop R&D in.

[Richard_Orton]

Thanks, yeah we did open a case, it was closed saying 'this isn't supported due to the way the ports are tunneled'

PM'd the info

Thanks

[Dmitrie_Shaiman · Accepted solution]

Hello @Richard_Orton ,

This is by design, in the future we will examine if it can be expanded.

It was explained in SR that it was open previously.