Note: This archive passes through spamassassin. Every mail marked with the subject "*****SPAM*****" has exceed a certain threshold of spam-like behaviour.

Re: [Users] Why does FreeSwan care about NAT? Was: Re: a "no suitable connection for peer" error

From: Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães (leonardo_at_solucoesip.net)
Date: Fri Apr 26 2002 - 17:42:46 CEST

Next message: Nate Carlson: "Re: [Users] FreeS/WAN 1.94 on Linux6.2 Server ?"
Previous message: Nate Carlson: "Re: [Users] RH7.2 RPM"
In reply to: Maurice Volaski: "[Users] Why does FreeSwan care about NAT? Was: Re: a "no suitable connection for peer" error"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Seems the problem is not with freeswan. All the problems are related to
IPSEC. IPSEC RFCs does NOT allow it to work when any of the machines are
NAT'ed .......

Sincerily,
Leonardo Rodrigues

----- Original Message -----
>
> I would think there are MANY people with NAT at home now, so it
> strikes me as odd that FreeSwan doesn't work with this. Why should it
> care anyway? Isn't supposed to accept any address on the right side?
> How would x509 even be relevant?
>

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users_at_lists.freeswan.org
http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Next message: Nate Carlson: "Re: [Users] FreeS/WAN 1.94 on Linux6.2 Server ?"
Previous message: Nate Carlson: "Re: [Users] RH7.2 RPM"
In reply to: Maurice Volaski: "[Users] Why does FreeSwan care about NAT? Was: Re: a "no suitable connection for peer" error"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 05:19:56 CEST