On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 08:58:33PM -1000, Randall Oshita wrote:
But I was just wondering if port translation is the same as
port redirection. Is it safe to say that the nat daemon does
port translation as well as address.
Maybe. I tried natd 5 years ago. It did what I needed it to do at
the
feeling unsatisfied
/brian chee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Vince Hoang
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:40 PM
To: Linux/Unix Advocates/Users Hawaiian community discussion list
Subject: Re: [LUAU] VPN
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 08:58
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Vince Hoang
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:40 PM
To: Linux/Unix Advocates/Users Hawaiian community
discussion list
Subject: Re: [LUAU] VPN
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 08:58:33PM -1000, Randall
Oshita wrote:
But I was just wondering if port translation
Anyone know if FreeBSD's NATd is considered a Network Address and Port
Translation device (NAPT). - I believe NAPT is different than NAT because it
translates the port as well. I know IPFilter and NATd allows for port
redirects, does that count? -dosen't sound like.
OR know of any good ports
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:47:57PM -1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone know if FreeBSD's NATd is considered a Network Address
and Port Translation device (NAPT).
Nice to know people are still using FreeBSD. You might consider
joining freebsd-questions. It is high traffic, but you can snarf
Did you try the man pages?
man natd# search for -redirect_address
man 5 ipnat # search for bimap
Yes, actually.
But I was just wondering if port translation is the same as port
redirection.
Is it safe to say that the nat daemon does port translation as well as
address.
If so then
Add more routable addresses into the fray or switch to a
site-to-site VPN. Those approaches are known to work.
So basically, i need to buy more WAN IPs huh?
thanks.
Randall
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:01:30PM -1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So basically, i need to buy more WAN IPs huh?
Well, you need a device that supports one-to-one NAT if you
decide to take that approach.
-Vince
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:49:10PM -1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to have multiple vpn clients to connect to the
same vpn concentrator if the clients are using a NAT behind the
same WAN IP? I heard about NAT-T but is there other ways? ESP
with Cisco devices?
I believe NAT
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:40:03PM -0600, Paul wrote:
I may be wrong, but I would think that would work fine. Each
user would have the same source IP address, but different
source ports (1024) via NAT. Anyone else know?
IPSEC headers do not have the concept of a port, so it cannot be
I may be wrong, but I would think that would work fine. Each user
would have the same source IP address, but different source ports
(1024) via NAT. Anyone else know?
Paul
--
Hosted by CyberAddict (http://www.cyberaddict.net)
On May 24, 2004, at 5:49 PM, [EMAIL
11 matches
Mail list logo
