Create a Post
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Richard_Orton
Explorer
Explorer
Jump to solution

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

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.

 

1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Dmitrie_Shiman
Employee
Employee

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.

View solution in original post

7 Replies
PhoneBoy
Admin
Admin

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
Explorer
Explorer

Thanks, that's much appreciated. 

Richard_Orton
Explorer
Explorer

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

Thanks

PhoneBoy
Admin
Admin

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

PhoneBoy
Admin
Admin

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
Explorer
Explorer

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_Shiman
Employee
Employee

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.

Leaderboard

Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.

Upcoming Events

    CheckMates Events