RE: VPN's

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 18. september 2001 03:01To: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's Thanks for all those replies. Am more worried now then I was before . ;-))   Why? Will try to be more specific: We have locally about 200 users, national (Australia) offices

RE: VPN's

Original Message- From: Neumann, Dagmar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:01 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: VPN's   Thanks for all those replies. Am more worried now then I was before . ;-))   Why? Will try to be more specific:

RE: VPN's

PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:05 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's What about PPTP? -Original Message-From: Richard Newton Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:30 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubjec

RE: VPN's

Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's Dan.   I thought L2TP isn't encrypted where PPTP is.  Is that true?   Dave -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 3:31 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject:

RE: VPN's

intranet access, e-mail and most importantly Citrix (ERP) over it. And, oh yes, Netscreen is definitely part of the deal. Tailcircuits will be probably either 128K or 256K.   Reading your messages it sounds like VPN's, yeah great, but only for a really small setup and not necessarily that rel

RE: VPN's

Dan.   I thought L2TP isn't encrypted where PPTP is.  Is that true?   Dave -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 3:31 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's Daniel,   Wouldn't y

RE: VPN's

Daniel,   Wouldn't your VPN traffic have greater security using L2TP instead of PPTP?   Dan -Original Message-From: Daniel Burns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 3:21 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: Re: VPN's Our company switched

Re: VPN's

know if you have any specific questions. Daniel Burns   - Original Message - From: SysAdm To: NT System Admin Issues Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: VPN's Hi everybody,   Very general question. My company is interested in cha

RE: VPN's

. -Original Message-From: Rocky Stefano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 17. september 2001 16:57To: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's Unless the router in front support IPSEC passthrough. -Original Message-From: Richard Newton Jr. [mailto:[

RE: VPN's

Title: Message Unless the router in front support IPSEC passthrough. -Original Message-From: Richard Newton Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: September 17, 2001 9:30 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's If you are doing NAT at the router before the fir

RE: VPN's

rks pretty well.   how's that for a general answer to a general question.   Dan -Original Message-From: SysAdm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:44 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: VPN's Hi everybody,   Very general question. My

RE: VPN's

Title: Message What about PPTP? -Original Message-From: Richard Newton Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:30 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's If you are doing NAT at the router before the firewall and Cisco 3005,

RE: VPN's

Title: Message when just do a NAT and permit traffic on the specified protocols/ports -Original Message-From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 17. september 2001 15:49To: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's I have it running next to t

RE: VPN's

Title: Message I have it running next to the FW   Router | FW-VPN   So what would I need to open via NAT? -Original Message-From: Martin Henriksen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:42 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN'

RE: VPN's

  -Original Message-From: Richard Newton Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 17. september 2001 15:30To: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's If you are doing NAT at the router before the firewall and Cisco 3005, IPSEC won't work.  The problem is that IPS

RE: VPN's

PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:08 AMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's Speaking of VPN's, we just got a Cisco 3005. I'm setting it up now. One thing I am confused on. I was planning to give the public side a public IP until I discovered that

RE: VPN's

Title: Message yes. either that or do a NAT0 in ur router and the give the public interface a public IP   /MH -Original Message-From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 17. september 2001 15:08To: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: VPN's Speaking of

RE: VPN's

Title: Message Speaking of VPN's, we just got a Cisco 3005. I'm setting it up now. One thing I am confused on. I was planning to give the public side a public IP until I discovered that we are doing NAT through our router rather than through the FW. So would I be correct in assum

RE: VPN's

r 17, 2001 7:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: VPN's   Netscreen's are the easiest that I've seen. Don't know if you can do it over a Frame Relay - don't have any experience on that.   Steve Clark Clark Systems Support, LLC AVIEN Charter Member

RE: VPN's

  -Original Message- From: SysAdm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: VPN's   Hi everybody,   Very general question. My company is interested in changing from Frame Relay to VPN. It looks very interesting to us, especially sinc

RE: VPN's

07:44To: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: VPN's Hi everybody,   Very general question. My company is interested in changing from Frame Relay to VPN. It looks very interesting to us, especially since you can save quite a bit of money with it, but   Who has

VPN's

Hi everybody,   Very general question. My company is interested in changing from Frame Relay to VPN. It looks very interesting to us, especially since you can save quite a bit of money with it, but   Who has made experiences with VPN's, good ones or bad ones. What about sec