[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: nat on enc0

To: "Agarwal, Amit (Amit)" <agramit@avaya.com>
Subject: Re: nat on enc0
From: Hakan Olsson <ho@crt.se>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:45:50 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: Cedric Berger <cedric@berger.to>, tech@openbsd.org
References: <FA00572E7C7F3D4692A8987213A7892C059EDB92@cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com>

Hi,

having just read this thread (twice, and I'm still not sure I follow), I'm
going to be somewhat "unhelpful" and suggest you redesign your solution
instead of looking for weird ways to make IPSec, NAT (double NAT even!)
and routing work as you want.  This very much looks like an invented
problem.

In my experience this never works, or atleast not well.

Design bugs should not be solved by code.

/H

--
Håkan Olsson <ho@crt.se>        (+46) 708 437 337     Carlstedt Research
Unix, Networking, Security      (+46) 31 701 4264        & Technology AB

Follow-Ups:
- Re: nat on enc0
  - From: Cedric Berger <cedric@berger.to>

References:
- Re: nat on enc0
  - From: "Agarwal, Amit (Amit)" <agramit@avaya.com>

Prev by Date: Re: nat on enc0
Next by Date: Re: Need -fno-stack-protector to prevent stack corruption
Prev by thread: Re: nat on enc0
Next by thread: Re: nat on enc0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread