Daniel Sutcliffe wrote:
> I can't agree with the above comment. I have plenty of users
> using IPSec and PPTP to the contivity from NT. The contivity
> also supports L2TP and some other tunneling protocols but
> we don't use them. We use Nortels IPSec windoz client
> version 2.51 and the PPTP stuff straight from M$ and have
> really only had "luser error" and "M$ inability to do routing
> or organise DNS properly" errors.
I use the Newoak/Bay/Nortel client from an NT system, and it does work
without a problem. The draw-back with the system is that they ONLY
support M$ clients (despite what they keep telling us they are working
on). However, I wouldn't touch ANYTHING with those four letters (PPTP).
IPSec is far more secure. So much so that M$ is actually dropping PPTP
from future development.
>
> As for Linux support, The Free/SWAN stuff specifically states
> that IPSec won't cooperate with this device in client mode
> (they give reasons why and suggest it will eventually be fixed)
> but report some success in use as a "branch office" router. I
> haven't tried either though.
The business-to-business vpn router stuff works pretty good, and it's
fairly trivial to set up. I've played with it a little, but again, I
chose to go with IPSec.
> I did play with PPTP while I was
> on the road one time, got very close to getting it working
> from Linux to the Contivity before getting home. When at home,
> the linux firewall here sets up a simple IPIP tunnel to works
> firewall as needed, not the most secure but all I require.
You can also set up a masquerading firewall with both IPSec and PPTP
support to pass the traffic through. There is a patch that allows this
to work @ http://www.wolfenet.com/~jhardin .
Kenny
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
