Re: Issues with 2 instances of NATD

2004-10-04 Thread Mikhail P.
On Monday 04 October 2004 16:53, Joseph Begumisa wrote: > I want traffic from one machine on the LAN with ip address 169.254.0.18 to > go out through ISP2 and traffic from the rest of the machines on the LAN o > go through ISP1. However, traffic from all machines including that one > goes through

Re: confusion with natd

2004-10-01 Thread Mikhail P.
On Friday 01 October 2004 16:21, Leon Garde wrote: > The other way  to route by source is to use a rule like this > > 'ipfw add  1 fwd  192.168.10.2  from 192.168.0.3 to any ' Thanks! That did the job, and now 192.168.0.3 is being routed to the inet via tun0. on HOST_B (local router), rules now

Re: confusion with natd

2004-10-01 Thread Mikhail P.
On Friday 01 October 2004 08:18, Mikhail P. wrote: > Basically we got back to the point where we > all started - I can ping remote party (HOST_B) from 192.168.0.x, but no > further. Sorry, supposed to be HOST_A in above sentence. regards, M. _

Re: confusion with natd

2004-10-01 Thread Mikhail P.
On Friday 01 October 2004 07:38, Juhani Tali wrote: > > ipfw add 4 divert 8568 ip from 192.168.0.3 to any out xmit tun0 > ipfw add 6 divert 8568 ip from any to any in recv tun0 > > > replace these with > ipfw add 4 divert 8568 ip from 192.168.0.3 to any > prior to this rule the packet was

Re: confusion with natd

2004-10-01 Thread Mikhail P.
On Friday 01 October 2004 06:51, Juhani Tali wrote: > I would set it up like so: > > This one in host B > > > natd -interface rl1 > > And this in host A > > > natd -port 8568 -interface tun0 > > You need to translate all the 192.168.0.x to tunnel's address and you > cannot do it in host B, because

confusion with natd

2004-09-30 Thread Mikhail P.
Hello FreeBSD Users, I have been playing with OpenVPN for a while, and have successfully configured pretty simple tunnel between local router (FreeBSD, which NATs LAN into inet) and remote host. Now my next target is to route some of the computers in the LAN into above VPN tunnel - that's wher

Re: question on tunnels (VPN)

2004-09-22 Thread Mikhail P.
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 23:18, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > I have the same situation here and the solution was to let the ADSL > router forward all unknown traffic to my router. How to do that is > router specific, but it can be done. > > Then, with the tunnels: > > central# ifconfig gif1 inet

Re: question on tunnels (VPN)

2004-09-22 Thread Mikhail P.
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote: > I use MPD using the "UDP" transport. > > in other words packets get sent as udp packets. > > I then set up IPSEC to encrypt the UDP packets.. > > when I had a NAT in the way I did further encapsulate the GRE packets in > UDP again :-)

question on tunnels (VPN)

2004-09-22 Thread Mikhail P.
Dear users, I have been experimenting with simple gif tunnels (no IPSec) in local network (192.168.0.0/24). I have used the following scenario between two hosts (both running FreeBSD-5.2.1): HOST_A [192.168.0.1]: ifconfig gif0 create ifconfig gif0 tunnel 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.2 ifconfig gif0 10