From: "Aldo Lagana" <alagana@discmail.com>
To: 'James O'Gorman' <james@netinertia.co.uk>, netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: RE: iptables PPTP p-o-m patch info
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:42:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001c2f24e$4508ca10$6d64a8c0@discmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030324202350.GG8391@netinertia.co.uk>
the pptp-conntrack patch from p-o-m works wonderfully for me - clients
on private addresses (192.168.x.x for me) can use their windows (ew!)
VPN connections they've setup to connect (just as NAT clients through my
iptables & patched gateway) to PPTP servers out on the Internet. So
yes, they are getting NATted, but the PPTP sessions still work - that is
the whole reason for the patch!
If this is what you need, then that is the patch that will work for you.
The problem I see is the Checkpoint VPN - is that a 100% PPTP VPN
server? Because the pptp patch will not work for IPSec or other
non-PPTP VPNs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org
> [mailto:netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org] On Behalf Of
> James O'Gorman
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:24 PM
> To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
> Subject: iptables PPTP p-o-m patch info
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm after a bit more info on this patch, as there doesn't
> seem to be much mentioned about it on the netfilter.org site,
> or in the p-o-m help. I've got an ADSL connection with a
> single static IP, and we're thinking about having a linux box
> using iptables to NAT the connection to the internal LAN.
>
> One of the computers on the LAN uses Check Point VPN-1
> SecuRemote to connect to a corporate network, but with our
> current setup (using a ZyXEL Prestige ADSL router) this isn't
> possible - the user has to unplug the router and use the USB
> ADSL modem plugged directly into his PC, meaning the rest of
> the network loses the Internet connection, which, obviously
> is inconvenient. We think this fails to work because of the
> router re-writing the packet headers, and the VPN software
> not liking this (it's a security risk).
>
> Does the PPTP patch for iptables allow this to work properly?
> ie, if 192.168.0.1 was the internet gateway (ppp0 for
> Internet and eth0 for
> LAN) and 192.168.0.4 needed to use VPN using 0.1 as the
> gateway instead of unplugging the gateway from the ADSL,
> would this work, or would it fail, for the same reasons it
> failed using the ZyXEL router?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> --
> James O'Gorman
> email: james@netinertia.co.uk | web: www.netinertia.co.uk
> What is food to one, is to others bitter poison.
> -- Titus Lucretius Carus
>
next parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-24 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20030324202350.GG8391@netinertia.co.uk>
2003-03-24 21:42 ` Aldo Lagana [this message]
2003-03-25 9:38 ` iptables PPTP p-o-m patch info Steve Cherry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000001c2f24e$4508ca10$6d64a8c0@discmail.com' \
--to=alagana@discmail.com \
--cc=james@netinertia.co.uk \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox