[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  =?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Ros=E1rio?= <carlos dot rosario at netcabo dot pt>
 To:  "'Christoph Hanle'" <christoph dot hanle at leinpfad dot de>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Static Routing?
 Date:  Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:45:40 +0100
Just an idea, can an IPSeC tunnel between m0n0_A and m0n0_B, be a solution
to this setup?? If so, do I need any static routes in any of the 3 routers?

What do you think about this?

Carlos Rosário

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Hanle [mailto:christoph dot hanle at leinpfad dot de] 
Sent: terça-feira, 6 de Setembro de 2005 19:42
To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Static Routing?

Carlos Rosário schrieb:
> No solution?
Not realy

> Site A:
> LAN -
> WAN Gateway:
> The internet gateway for this subnet is at and provides DHCP
> to this subnet.
> Site B:
> WAN  Gateway:

I this correct?:[Router_xy-]-LAN_A([]-[]-LAN_B(

If it is so:
1.Router_xy gets route destinaton to
- maybe also destinaton
2. mono_A gets changed: to WAN to LAN
route on mono_A to mono-B (, GW on mono_A is 
3. mono-B is ok, but route to (mono_A)

4. increase to
5. untag "Block private networks" on both monos
6. i think, but i don´t realy know, then you need 1:1 NAT on both monos.

This should work, but if you don´t need realy firewalling, take a look 
on freesco, it should work easier for you.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch