The decision to use ESP versus UDP is out of my hands since we are connecting to a client's VPN. However, since I have more information about the likely cause, I may be able to get them to accomodate our "special" situation.
-----Original Message----- From: Dan Swartzendruber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:10 AM To: Matt Repko; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [gb-users] Nortel Contivity VPN clients behind Gnatbox At 09:06 AM 11/3/2003 -0500, Matt Repko wrote: >Dan, > >I'm pretty sure ESP is being used. You might see the symptoms I am describing >if you were to establish two VPN connections while at home. I didn't believe >our developers at first but we've tested so many different configurations, >that I am confident the problem is related to Gnatbox's inability to properly >route ESP traffic. This makes sense since there are no ports numbers >associated with the traffic. > >I think I will pursue the multiple IP addresses option on the client's side >first. > >Marteen, > >How would I configure the GB-1000 to make it appear that the different VPN >sessions are originating from different static IP addresses? As a previous poster suggested: using static address mapping. If you have more than a handful of PCs using the client, this could be a nightmare though. Is there some reason you're unwilling (or unable) to use UDP? It's a far better solution! (and is why VPN providers have been migrating that way...) ------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://archives.gnatbox.com/gb-users/
