r...@evine.ca>>
Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM
To: James McGoodwin mailto:jmcgood...@kobo.com>>
Subject: Re: Concurrent L2TP/IPSEC connections for Windows Clients behind a
shared NAT
On Nov 21, 2014 8:10 AM, "James McGoodwin"
mailto:jmcgood...@kobo.com>> wrot
Thanks for your feedback and confirmation Yasuoka.
I’m glad you’re able to reproduce the issue, it’s been a difficult one to
try
to explain to google;) Took me longer than I’d care to admit to finally
pin
down the specifics so I could even pose this question to the group.
I think for the time be
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:48:44 +
James McGoodwin wrote:
> However Windows clients are limited to only one connection at a
> time. Subsequent connections cause the current session to die and
> be replaced by the new one.
(snip)
> In short, many security associations (for each windows client) but
gt;
Subject: Re: Concurrent L2TP/IPSEC connections for Windows Clients behind a
shared NAT
Is there any reason to not use iked and skip the whole L2TP bit?
I've found the built in Windows ikev2 VPN to work better then the older L2TP.
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/png whic
Is there any reason to not use iked and skip the whole L2TP bit?
I've found the built in Windows ikev2 VPN to work better then the older
L2TP.
Hi all,
I believe this is one of those i think the answer is no, but need to ask
situations.
Weve built out an L2TP/IPSEC environment whose goal is to provide VDI access
to
subsidiaries and support client connections from MacOS, Windows, Unix,
Linux,
et all.
For MacOS and *nix, client connec
6 matches
Mail list logo
