cing while they mumble
> under their breath about NAT...and unless you take
> care, you may find both
> leaving you feeling unsatisfied
>
> /brian chee
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Vince Hoang
>
ind both
leaving you 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, M
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
>>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
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
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 tha
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
> 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 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
transl
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
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
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?
Thanks.
Randall
12 matches
Mail list logo
