> 1.) Do I understand it correctly that the latest Bering(s)(Bering-uClibc & > Bering) both support NAT traversal? I'm a little confused because of the > earlier post entitled "Bering 1.1 and NAT-Traversal" that referred to Alex > Rhomberg's LEAF Page at > http://leaf-project.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=1402&page_id=49 > seemed to > suggest you might need to do something different if you wanted your Bering > box to support traversal.
Bering 1.1 should support NAT traversal, but there still seem to be some problems. I use my own kernel available on the page you referenced, and I have tested it successfully with NAT traversal, plus it includes some more stuff (ipsec algorithm patches and some netfilter things) > 2.) Is it difficult (or even possible) to connect to a box behind Bering > using IPSec? (I have a Windows 2000 Server on my LAN that I would like to > securely connect to.) I see that Jacques says "NAT-Traversal patch allows > FreeS/WAN to be used behind any NAT device by encapsulating ESP > in UDP.", That's the point of IPSec, secure connections to boxes behind firewalls. NAT Traversal is needed for this setup: Server --- Bering --- Internet --- NAT-box --- IPSec Client If your IPSec Client uses a public IP address, you don't need nat traversal. It doesn't matter if your Bering box does NAT for your server, as through the tunnel, you will address the server by its private address without NAT - Alex ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
