|
||||||||||
Fournaux Nicolas wrote: >Hi. > >If i could use NAT on my PPTP interface of Monowall it will solve my problem because the PPTP client will send packets to >192.168.1.1 and Monowall will forward them to 192.168.0.2. > >It is why i want to enable NAT on my PPTP interface. > >Is it possible with monowall ? it is an important feature i think. > > >Bye and thanks. > >Honnor and Glory to unix users. > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Dave Warren [mailto:maillist at devilsplayground dot net] >Envoyé : mercredi 11 août 2004 23:05 >À : Fournaux Nicolas; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >Objet : Re: [m0n0wall] Is a NAT on PPTP interface a taboo subject ? > > >Fournaux Nicolas wrote: > > > >>Is a NAT on PPTP interface a taboo subject ? >>It is strange that i m the only people who gets the problem. >> >>If your LAN is on 192.168.0.0/24 and if the LAN of the PPTP client is also on 192.168.0.0/24 (and this case if not rare) how can pptp client send packet to the remote LAN ? >>The workstation will sent all packets to his LAN interface and not to VPN :( >> >>Cya and thanks for any help. >> >>Sorry for this reply from myself :) >> >> >> >> >Your only real option is to change the subnets on one or the other >side. IP was built with the assumption that *every* host has a unique >IP and there are no provisions for cases where multiple machines are >attempting to share IP space. > >In Windows it MIGHT be possible to do this using route table entries, try > >Assuming your "real" IP is 192.168.0.1 VPN IP you're assigned is >192.168.0.2, if you want to communicate with host 192.168.0.10 on the >VPN, try the following command: > >route add 192.168.0.10 192.168.0.2 > >(Yes, this is routing a packet to yourself -- It tends to work though, >in Windows anyway) > >In general IP renumbering (especially of a home LAN) isn't usually too >painful, especially when compared to dealing with similar IP blocks -- >For most home LANs you just change the IP on their router and reboot all >the IPs and you're done. > >I'd recommend picking something relatively unique, 10/8 is good for this >because the IP space is so huge (compared to 192.168/16), but you'll run >into some networks that use subnet masks of 10/8 just because they can. >Chances of colliding networks at 10.251.88/24 (or something equally >random) is significantly lower then the often-used 192.168.0/8 ro >192.168.1/8 > > > I agree that this would be a great feature to have. I am having the exact same problem with subnets. I would like to avoid having to add routes on my pptp clients. Thanks, Jon |