"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <b...@freebsd.org> writes: Hi Bjoern,
> What I said before and will repeat is that if you want to use NAT and > VPN you want to do inside NAT (addmittingly handling the local machine > is a different story). I have done that years ago with ipfw. Then your > SA works on the NAT IP. I used it to avoid formerly RFC1918 address > collisions by NATing to an unrouted public IP for just the VPNs. > THe NAT IP will not be bound to any interface at all. Ok, I've never used ipfw so shot in the dark. If I had to nat 192.168.85.0/24 to 10.0.0.1 to access 192.168.201.0/24, I would have to setup the following : ipfw add divert natd all from 192.168.85.0/24 to 192.168.201.0/24 in natd -alias_address 10.0.0.1 setkey -c << EOD spdadd 10.0.0.1/32 192.168.201.0/24 any -P out ipsec esp/tunnel/mygw-theirgw/require ; spdadd 192.168.201.0/24 10.0.0.1/32 any -P in ipsec esp/tunnel/theirgw-mygw/require ; EOD Does it seem reasonable or do I miss something ? > There is a reason major vendors have been doing inside and outside NAT > for ages now. That pf cannot do that is bad and a design problem there. Ok, thanks for you explanations. Regards -- Salut, Je ne reçoit plus de messages de la mailing-list des nordistes. -+- SG in: GNU - Un ch'ti coup d'fufe pour la route ? -+- _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"