precisely, and that's what I focused on. why whitewash it, if it was all good.
also the type of assurance testing required to validate the code base out would outweigh the total revenue NET ha ever made
I appreciate the comments, I do try to be humble but sometimes you need blunt force to get through to these people.
to give you some background I've worked for 4 of the largest resource companies in Australia and the world, iron ore, and oil and gas. I've since moved into the finance side of the world where ISP and SOC2 is all the norm.
I've worked at tech lead and problem solver for several of these companies and large multi billion dollar projects, from 10 users to 300k users. vendors listen to me, and generally shy away from answering the hard questions as they don't expect to be asked them by a client pleb.
as for the 'engineer' above sure no worries, but everything he just stated confirmed precisely what I i said, it's a peer to peer vpn solution with a central controller making decisions for the control plane.
the simple fact of using this method counters JT's statements that it's invisible and faster, and doesn't even compare to his mpls analogy. in short, he either doesn't know the tech, or he knows he's selling Disallowed. they are too late to the game, and that's not even mentioning the complexities about the Chinese censorship and registration of gateways and vpn like services. if they can detect and block ToR you can be damn well sure they can see an encrypted packet and drop it. and no amount of FEC is going to resolve that issue as it's UDP.
the whole premise that LAN over WAN is an issue was solved, H help me out here. 10-12 ? years ago, further if you want to look at xconnect and gre tunnels. which is beside the point. in security, segmentation, control and logging is king.
the guy who invented this / attributed to the patent, is a high school IT admin. with no background other than netlinkz/iwg
if it's so special and important, explain why in the past 10 years they have not tried to sell off the patents or lie fence them? because if they did they'd be thrown out of court for prior art.
ZTP - zero touch provisioning, something JT touted as a benefit is a load of bs. it doesn't work on anything except really hardware devices (oh NET is a hardware company now?) it works based on phoning come to a centralised NET controller server, which then according to a serial number and such, will redirect it to the registered clients deployment server. wait hang on. didn't they say no central point was required, totally private. guess not.
for the mobile aspect, unless you're running a MDM system, then it's going to be a manual enrolment, as kwee likes to say this is great for small businesses, name one small business that can afford the licensing n admin and config for a dedicated MDM for their 20 users. another breach point.
for point to point to work, you need either a centralised tracker, or each client needs to maintain a peer table. compromise one device, find a device that does a lot of comms. and you now have the target device.
I've done blue team, red team, design, deployment, numerous bugs in large platforms attributed to me, white paper deployment guides.
what NET had, was worth something in 2010. in 2020 they are worth literally zero other than what they could sell the patents and office furniture for. because they can't compete in the western world they jump on the China growth train and hype the hell out of it, suckering you guys in with 10 year old tech.
/rant over
NET Price at posting:
7.3¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)