[ale] VPN Protocol Question

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 15:40 -0400, Kenneth Ratliff wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Andrew Grieser wrote:
> >
> > The VPN server will be on a pfSense box that also does the  
> > following: router, firewall, DHCP server, and DNSmasq.
> > The VPN server will have a "real" IP address (ie: no NAT), but as I  
> > client I expect to be on networks using NAT at least some of the  
> > time. If I am understanding the protocols, I believe this rules out  
> > IPSec. Is this true?

> The use of NAT does not automatically rule out IPSec, but the use of  
> pfSense does. pfSense doesn't support NAT-T (NAT Transversal, which is  
> basically just encapsulating the IPSec packet in a UDP packet), unless  
> that's changed recently.

	This would seem to indicate that pfSense supports NAT-T as of 1.3

	http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=211

===
Completed Work

	:

	10. NAT-Traversal (NAT-T)
===

	Looks like somewhere around mid 2008 there.

	Regards,
	Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20090416/28bf89b4/attachment.bin