[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Mark Pimentel <mpimentel at dsl dot ca>
 To:  Chris Olive <chris at technologEase dot com>, mpimentel at dsl dot ca
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch, ron at oneinsane dot net
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Nortel Contivity VPN Client
 Date:  Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
What about the ipsec built into m0n0?  Doesn't it
listen on port 500?

Would that mean i would have to disable ipsec to allow
a Nortel VPN connection to occur?


--- Chris Olive <chris at technologEase dot com> wrote: >
Mark Pimentel wrote:
> >Still doesn't seem to do anything.  I dont even get
> >any logging either.  Any thoughts?
> >
> >Much appreciated.
> >
> I had to work on this awhile back myself and was
> able to get it to work by:
> (1) Setting up DHCP to hand my work laptop an
> address based on MAC
> address (so I always got the same IP)
> (2) NATing UDPs on port 500 only back to my laptop's
> IP address
> (3) Allowing fragmented packets
> This would appear to "fail" the first couple of
> times I tried to log
> into No-Tell VPN back into work, then on the third
> attempt, it would
> magically work.  I continued and improved to success
> on every connection
> attempt by:
> (1) Removing the NATing rule
> (2) Continuing to allow fragmented packets
> (3) Continuing to obtain IP address via DHCP mapped
> by MAC to my laptop
> (4) Setting a WAN rule to port forward all packets
> on any port from the
> lower 15 IPs coming from my work place back to my
> laptop IP
> I wasn't aware of traffic on port 10001; I never saw
> that in my logs and
> by restricting port forwarding to my company's
> public VPN IP addresses,
> I've limited where incoming SYN packets will be
> received in this
> scenariio.  This works fine for me.  I find the
> Nortel VPN connectiivty
> solution pretty chinsey compared to other VPNs I
> have used.
> I can provide you with screen prints of my WAN
> ruleset if this helps.
> It was a bit of a pain to get this to work.  The
> real problem, in my
> opinion is accouting for the SYN packet(s) back and
> thus the port
> forwarding was my solution.  Perhaps a better one
> exists, but from what
> I saw in the logs as I was trouble-shooting this, I
> didn't see any way
> around it.  Now knowing about port 10001, I might
> look into something a
> little more restrictive, but I feel pretty good with
> the restricted IPs
> being forwarded back at this point.
> I'm surprised you don't get logging.  You may want
> to look into your
> overall logging setup; that is what helped me solve
> my problem -- seeing
> the SYN from port 500 trying to get through.
> HTH,
> chris
> -----
> Chris Olive
> chris at technologEase dot com