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
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... :-)