[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "John Benjamin" <john at thebenjs dot com>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Outbound VPN while forwarding to an LAN based NAT'd VPN Server
 Date:  Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:22:59 -0800
More information:

The network we are having trouble VPN'ing with PPTP is running FreeBSD
5.4-stable with mpd VPN and ipf.

Thanks again - I sure hope someone can help us pinpoint a solution for this
problem!
John 
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Benjamin [mailto:john at thebenjs dot com] 
>Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 2:11 AM
>To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>Subject: [m0n0wall] Outbound VPN while forwarding to an LAN 
>based NAT'd VPN Server
>
>Hello - 
> 
>I am running 1.2 and using the PPTP Forwarding option to a 
>W2k3/SBS box on the LAN as my VPN Server.  All works well, there.
> 
>I'm having problems with outbound PPTP/VPN sessions to one 
>particular network.  Outbound VPNs initiated from the w2k3/sbs 
>box work infrequently.
>Resetting firewall and NAT state tables seem to be of 
>intermittent help.
>PPTP/VPN sessions from other clients (XP Pro) never succeed to 
>this one particular network.  But those XP Pro clients can 
>connect to other VPN servers without fail.  
> 
>So, it seems to be specific to the hardware on both ends.  
>We've started talking to the techs for the VPN that we are 
>having trouble connecting to so we can find out more details 
>about their config, what hardware they are using, and if there 
>is anything in the logs to shed a clue.
> 
>I wanted to get more information from the m0n0wall list.   
>I've read through
>the FAQs and searched the archives and I see that PPTP is 
>known 'not to play well with NAT' but I haven't found a 
>definitive answer as to if this setup should work or not, or 
>how to make it work.
> 
>What is the latest info on outbound VPN while NAT'ing to a LAN 
>based VPN server?
> 
>Any help is appreciated.  It's late so please excuse me if 
>I've left out a useful nugget of information.
> 
>thanks very much,
>John
> 
> 
>  
>