Since I didn't really see any question in this posting other perhaps the
subject line, it's a bit difficult to answer.

If you're wondering why you can't have multiple VPN clients connect (to
the exact same IP address from behind a GTA firewall), well that is a
very easy one to answer.

There are two parts to a IPSec VPN connection: 1) IKE key exchange which
communicates on UDP 500 (destination port) with the source port floating
however some implementations require the source to be UDP 500 also (but
not in the specifications).  Part 2) is the encapsulated tunnel using
the ESP (IP protocol 50).  The ESP protocol has no ports specifications
(unlike TCP and UDP).  Therefore to make a unique connection between two
systems all you have are the source IP and the destination IP.  So if
your client is behind a NAT firewall the source IP address will be that
of the firewall.  If you have two clients behind the firewall attempting
to connect to the same destination IP address there will be a conflict
as the two sessions will appear to be identical (same source and same
destination).  This is not unique to GTA's firewall it is a fact of the
IPSec standard.

Then the issue arises, "If you have multiple clients requiring
connections to the same destination why not simply let the firewall do
the work and establish a VPN between the firewall and the target?"

As for NAT-T, it may be an answer as it encapsulates the session in a
single UDP tunnel.  I'm not familiar enough with NAT-T but it most
likely would allow mulitple source ports hence solving your problem.
However if the VPN client supports NAT-T and your target supports NAT-T
this should work today as the GTA firewall would have not impact on the
connection.  If the target is a GTA firewall then it is a different
issue (for the moment).

The next GB-OS release 3.7, will support NAT-T.

Paul Emerson

On Wednesday, March 23, 2005 at 07:50, Clive Walker wrote:

>Hi
>
>
>
>I am trying to understand whether there are any other solutions apart
>from what was discussed in November 2003 by Paul Emerson (Nortel
>Contivity VPN clients behind Gnatbox), which I assume would apply.
>
>
>
>At present I haven't established any details about the firewall in
>question, but I know that only one GB VPN client works concurrently
>(connecting to our GB-Ware v 3.6.1)
>
>
>
>Is NAT-T the answer or is it still not available?
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>Clive Walker
>
>
>
>
>Employer Services Ltd.
>This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may well also be
legally
>privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its
status.
>
>Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
message from
>your system.
>Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its
contents to
>any other person: to do so could be a breach of confidence.
>
>Thank you for your co-operation. Please contact us on  +44 (0)1277
230656 or
>email [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you need assistance.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe:           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands:         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Archive:  http://archives.gnatbox.com/gb-users/
>
>
--
Paul Emerson                       Global Technology Associates, Inc.
Tel: +1.407.380.0220               http://www.gta.com/
Fax: +1.407.380.6080               Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mob: +1.407.617.7818               AIM: pje1gta

------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe:           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands:         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive:  http://archives.gnatbox.com/gb-users/

Reply via email to