Bootup delay creating vpn tunnel as service on win2k

[neil77]

I'm trying to set up a vpn tunnel to a bluesocket wireless gateway using bluesocket MS IPSec config. tool. The users are authenticated on our domain. IPSec is running as a service and does work, however when you initially boot the laptop, there is a delay of around 1 min 20 sec. before the tunnel is created that needs to be eliminated - so you have to wait and not log in for this time.
Once the tunnel is up, you can log on and off without delay as the tunnel does not go down. If you log on after a bootup without waiting the 1min 20 sec. then you'll be logged on locally assuming the account has been created on the local machine.

Any ideas how to initialise the tunnel before the logon screen?

 

[joathan]

We are currently configuring a blue socket gateway at our campus. We too are experiencing issues implementing bluesocket. Currently, we cannot obtain DHCP IP addresses to wireless clients. Also, we cannot establish an IP SEC connection between wireless clients and the gateway. We would appreciate any help with these issues.

 

[bcastner]

If using XP, you will be surprised with all the Bluetooth attention given to Service Pack 2.

Test the Release Candidate #2 to see if it helps:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/sp2preview.mspx

 

[bcastner]

True story:

I was at the last MVP Summit in early May, and Jim Alchin, the Client architect for MSFT Windows, was showing SP2 features. When he came to the Bluetooth portion the overhead screen over-filled with entries. He looked puzzled for a long moment and said: "Note to myself, do not demonstrate Bluetooth again with an audience of 1,000 MVPs sitting there, all with Bluetooth devices on their belts."

It did resolve some four hundred Bluetooth addresses, and I thought quite quickly.

 

[joathan]

We are using a wireless gateway manufactured by a company called bluesocket. This gateway has nothing to do with bluetooth technology.

 

[bcastner]

My apologies.

But I am curious why you chose such a proprietary solution over the choices available with industry standard 802.1x.

This is not a criticism, but what was missing from the standards for 802.1x authentication that led you to such a choice?