On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:54:40AM +0100, Oldach, Helge wrote:
> From: Crist J. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 06:22:55PM +0100, Helge Oldach wrote:
> > > Nothing that works well and has noticeable exposure is useless. This
> > > definitely has both. Not with FreeBSD, though. It does work with Windows
> > > 2000 SP4, to put a name up... So it's definitely out there.
> >
> > Two different ESP end points behind many-to-one NAT connected to a
> > single ESP end point on the other side of the NAT? I'd be very curious
> > to get the documentation on how they are cheating to get that to work.
>
> You have posted a reference already. W2k SP4 supports UDP encapsulation of
> IPSec. And yes, it works fine, and reliably. Further, all of Cisco's and
> Checkpoints VPN gear support IPSec-over-UDP as well. This alone is >70%
> market share.
Oh, yeah, I know of UDP or TCP encapsulation tricks that work. I have
dealt with several of these implementations too. I thought that you
were implying that there were working NAT implementations that could
deal with ESP in these circumstances.
--
Crist J. Clark | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
