Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-10 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Jeremie Le Hen writes: > Given the simplicity of gif(4) IP-encapsulated packets, I wonder > how Linux guys could have implemented something else in their IPIP > module :-). They didn't, Linux IPIP exactly what it sounds like it does: IP in IP encapsulation. The confusion seems to be on the par

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-10 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes: > It's currently pushing 7:30 pm, and I was going to send out a reply > tomorrow. But indeed, it seems that Linux people prefer GRE tunnels, > we prefer (with good reason) IP tunnels, ... Like FreeBSD, Linux supports both GRE and IPIP. It is not a Linux thing to us

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-10 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Gianmarco Giovannelli writes: > Hi Greg, I have follow with interest this thread because I had a similar > problem sometimes ago and we din't succeded in resolve it as I like ... > > I had to connect a couple of a nets with a freebsd box and a linux box > (not managed by me). They insist t

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-10 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes: > Certainly that confusion exists. But it doesn't seem to be the > problem here: the original poster (Gianmarco?) stated that he had > tried to set up a tunnel with gif(4), which would mean an IP-IP > tunnel. If you were referring to Gianmarco then as the following

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-11 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes: > Ah, my bad. But nos-tun also does IP-IP, so he was using the correct > tool. So that doesn't seem to be the problem here. By default non-tun uses protocol 94 which is not compatible with gif(4) and Linux IPIP, both of which protocol 4. There is an option (-p) to

Re: GRE and PF problem

2005-07-14 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Giovanni P. Tirloni writes: > I don't know how PF keeps tracks of ICMP packets but there must be a > way for it to distinguish between a packet destined to 192.168.0.1 or 0.2. An ICMP ECHO REQUEST message has a 16-bit id field which can be altered by NAT to identify the originating machine.

Re: IPSec VPN & NATD (problem with alias_address vs redirect_address)

2003-11-21 Thread Stephen J. Bevan
Crist J. Clark writes: > Two different ESP end points behind many-to-one NAT connected to a > single ESP end point on the other side of the NAT? I'd be very curious > to get the documentation on how they are cheating to get that to work. A cheat is to use the sequence number in the ESP header t