Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Bob K <melange () yip org>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:06:41 -0400 (EDT)


...except current implementations of IPSEC:

http://www.isp-planet.com/technology/2001/ipsec_nat.html

Luckily, the above article also mentions the fixes that are in the
works...

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Bora Akyol wrote:

Bob
I am not supporting NAT here, but
most common IPSEC implementations including Free S/WAN work fine behind 
NAT.

Bora

I stand corrected after perusing http://jixen.tripod.com/#NATed%20gateways
- although I'm not sure I'd describe that as working "fine", but rather
"can be made to work, in a narrow set of circumstances".  It should be
noted that the Free S/WAN docs explicitly recommend against trying it.

-- 
Bob <melange () yip org> | Yes.  I know.  That is, indeed, *not* mayonnaise.







  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]