One question about PPTP... in some FW-1 documentation it states that PPTP will not work with NAT in 3.0 and 4.0. However, does it work with NAT in a 4.1 configuration??? i.e. is there a requirement by PPTP that the connection address is hidden in the packet?
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Mon, August 21, 2000 2:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Firewall and PPTP
>
>
> pptp is port 1723 - remember, that's the authentication part,
> after that
> it uses GRE (protocol 47, not regular TCP/UDP tranist).
>
> Preferences for how to have it interface with the rest of your network
> mostly depends on how your network is segmented and the types
> of access
> people need.
>
> - Aaron Schultz
> - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ------
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Justin Jinga wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have to implement a VPN using PPTP and I ask you for
> opinions for the
> > following solution (or if you have a better one).
> >
> > We have a firewall (Linux) and behind a Microsoft shop.
> > If we want to implement PPTP for corporate users: we have
> to install a NT
> > PPTP server in front of the firewall with 2 network cards,
> one with external
> > IP and which accepts only PPTP packets (and maybe allow
> only certain IP's)
> > and one which talks with the firewall. Correct me if I am
> wrong or if there
> > are different ways to do it.
> >
> >
> > On the list of well-known ports I didn't find a port for PPTP.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Justin
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
> >
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
