On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 20:40, till wrote:
> On 6/6/05, Henning Wangerin
> <mailinglists dash after dash 041101 underscore reply dash not dash possible at hpc dot dk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 18:55, till wrote:
> > > No, I want _one_ m0n0wall for 2 locations.
> > How are your locations connected? Do you have a fixed (VPN) link between
> > them?
> Not at all or not yet. Both have Internet access. That's all.
Not much ;-)
> I've been searching around about this issue and I have found a post by
> someone on wifigeek.net , who had a different approach to the whole
> captive portal/authorization theme.
> Check the post here:
> Basically, this exclusivly relies on DNS and all you need to
> distribute is a DNS server which then gets the user to a website
> (online) where they sign in and then they are "ready to surf". I was
> wondering if m0n0wall could be used to accomplish the same thing.
I have trouble seeing how that would prevent me (as a user on you AP) to
connect to the net if I simply setup my own dns-info on my pc.
Ok you could block DNS in a firewall (but you don't want any hardware
except the AP, as I understand)
That could be bypassed by simply making a vpn-connection directly to my
home IP, and then setting my dns to go thru the VPN-tunnel.
> Since I have multiple locations and would not like to distribute more
> hardware than necessary,
> it sounded like a good idea to me. When I
> speak of multiple locations, then I mean, that they are around 300 km
> apart from each other.
As long as they are not seen as on the same LAN, it's getting tricky.
> Both are hooked up to the Internet and that's
> all so far.
I don't see how you would avoid some sort of vpn home to the central
office, or a portal at each point.
The VPN-idea might be able to create a virtual LAN, so the users would
only have to be set up i one place.
Henning Wangerin <mailinglists dash after dash 041101 underscore reply dash not dash possible at hpc dot dk>