To clients such as the desktop and the FTP server, the tunnel is
invisible -- it *looks* like there is a router that connects the
192.168.61.0/24 network directly to the 172.16.12.0/24 network
(although the latency will suggest that there is something odd about
that connection).
Each of the end machines, seeing an address that is not on its
local net, will send the packets to its nearby gateway; each of the
gateways will recognize that the destination network is one for which
it has a tunnel definition, and so will send the packets through the
tunnel.
David Gillett
On 11 Jun 2001, at 10:35, Swamy Patil wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> I am having a little doubt about Gateway-to-gateway VPN :
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Consider the case of a two offices one in Mumbai and the one in Newyork:
>
> The IP addressing for the Mumbai Office is 192.168.61.0
>
> Thre IP addressing for the Newyork Office is 172.16.12.0
>
>
> Consider 2 gateways protecting the respective offices at Mumbai and Newyork are
>configured for gateway to gateway VPN.
>
> Consider an FTP server at the newyork with the IP address 172.16.12.200 (FTP server
>not meant for public access and is only for Newyork and Mumbai Offices).
>
>
> Now with the VPN between the two Offices ,is it possible for the desktop
>machine(192.168.61.40) at the mumbai office have the FTP to the Newyork FTP server
>without NAT or redirection at the Newyork gateway.
>
>
> i.e., if the client at mumbai types" FTP 172.16.12.200" and presses Enter will he be
>able to get the access to the FTP server assuming he has the full access permission
>to the FTP Server.
>
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Does the FTP server at the Newyork has to be NATted to the Valid IP or not required.
>
>
> Please give some suggestions on this
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Swamy Patil
>
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
