On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:35:22 -0400
"Chris Buechler" <cbuechler at gmail dot com> wrote:
> On 6/14/06, Walter PC <walterpc at mchsi dot com> wrote:
>> M0n0wall is a perfect example of a VPN server that does not play
>> clients that are behind a NAT.
> Technically correct, but misleading. PPTP is an example of a VPN
> protocol that does not play well with NAT. Doesn't matter if it's
> m0n0wall or anything else.
I was going to say this as well. Everything breaks PPTP...
>> PPTP passthrough doesn't really work that well.
> And many firewalls break or block outbound GRE in their default NAT
> configuration, hence breaking PPTP.
<cough>Pix<cough><cough> :-) And to fix it is a PITA cli nightmare
that is poorly documented. But things like that make me money!
>> As mentioned before, the $$$$ equipment we have all have Plug-N-Play
> This has come up several times before, and is still the same. I'm
> aware of any open source software that does this. If you can find
> something specific that could be a solution, post here and let us
> know. It would most likely make its way in, unless it's a real
One that I know of. I can not remember the name, but I want to say
"Nexgate?" Hilton hotels require it for the solution they use. (I
tried google, but "Hilton internet gateway" only gets vacation deals
and pictures of the world’s most famous bimbo) They also require
Cisco APs. They run a vlan for EVERY client, and proxy arp everything
they see on the vlan. Is that messy? :-)
>> Maybe Smoothwalls uPnP is different then what I am describing.
> uPnP is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upnp
> not at all related to what you're talking about.
Darn those confusing terms... :-)