Hi, David,
Thank you.
I do see incrementing Tx numbers on the network link we're using for BCJ, so I *think* the expected commuincation path is working. I'll ask our networking hyenas to let me know.
As is the standard IT answer, it depends... If the preferred 10 net is able to route within our network to get to remote 172 net, then yes, correct. However, at some of our sites, the hyenas disable this routing due to separating traffic amonst the several iDMZs, where some iDMZs are not to talk to others: ITAR/DFARS/CUI, and the like. Thus the benefit for the application to assign the flow, and BCJ can flow down its assigned path.
I didn't know that WAN accelerators could do this, good to know and have this in mind. You're right, it does mean additional roles. Definitely I'm lobbying that a checkbox / wizard that is native to the VBR app to enable interface / subnet selection is a better solve than having to stand up more infrastructure.
Thank you.
I do see incrementing Tx numbers on the network link we're using for BCJ, so I *think* the expected commuincation path is working. I'll ask our networking hyenas to let me know.
As is the standard IT answer, it depends... If the preferred 10 net is able to route within our network to get to remote 172 net, then yes, correct. However, at some of our sites, the hyenas disable this routing due to separating traffic amonst the several iDMZs, where some iDMZs are not to talk to others: ITAR/DFARS/CUI, and the like. Thus the benefit for the application to assign the flow, and BCJ can flow down its assigned path.
I didn't know that WAN accelerators could do this, good to know and have this in mind. You're right, it does mean additional roles. Definitely I'm lobbying that a checkbox / wizard that is native to the VBR app to enable interface / subnet selection is a better solve than having to stand up more infrastructure.
Statistics: Posted by sdolcourt — May 05, 2026 8:22 pm
