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

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

From: tjoen (tjoen_at_xion-consulting.com)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 09:38:50 CEST

Next message: Satish R: "[Users] Help - Pluto not starting"
Previous message: Andreas Steffen: "RE: [Users] FreeSwan 1.97 + x.509 0.9.11 + Sentinel 1.3 Problem"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> From: Maurice Volaski [mailto:mvolaski_at_aecom.yu.edu]
> Sent: zaterdag 27 april 2002 5:31

> > 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 .......

> Is this an April Fool's joke?

No, I don't think so.
Q: Did you read the firewall section of the docs?
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users_at_lists.freeswan.org
http://lists.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Next message: Satish R: "[Users] Help - Pluto not starting"
Previous message: Andreas Steffen: "RE: [Users] FreeSwan 1.97 + x.509 0.9.11 + Sentinel 1.3 Problem"
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