[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Mike Nichols <mike at myownsoho dot net>
 To:  Lee Sharp <leesharp at hal dash pc dot org>
 Cc:  "m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] using common topology through captive portal
 Date:  Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:30:10 -0400
this is interesting,
i'm unable to access any boxes using address translation to addresses 
behind the captive portal.  Is this intentional?
I have to replace the machine i'm testing at the remote end. so testing 
is slowed for now.

i will keep information updated on what is accessible and what isn't.

Lee Sharp wrote:
> Mike Nichols wrote:
>>
>> Though i plan to try this out late tonight, i was hoping to get some
>> feedback on it beforehand.
>> i plan to connect two offices through use of physical connections that
>> must include the captive portal. What i mean is that the only way to
>> connect the two locations is use of infrastructure that is using the
>> captive portal. so i'm thinking of just applying pass rules and setting
>> static IPs on those machines corresponding to the network outside the
>> captive portal. My question is this, when using the pass through mac, 
>> what
>> is actually happening? is it just routing the traffic around the portal?
>> Will the packets make it through the portal, through the pass rules 
>> and act
>> as usual (probably without multicast)? 
>
> Passthrough MAC is not what you think.  You still need to use a web 
> browser first, but you are "pre authenticated" so you never see the 
> login.  What you want is allowed IP addresses.  And yes, you will need 
> to type in a lot.  However, the "ANY - > IP on remote network" is 
> handy, and they will still need to log in for web surfing.
>
>             Lee
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>