On 1 dec. 2011, at 03:05, Ugo Bellavance wrote: > On 2011-11-29 12:18, David Burgess wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Ugo Bellavance<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I know, but we didn't want to do any routing because subnets may change and >>> overlap in the future, since this is two distinct organizations. >> >> >> I don't see how NAT fixes that. With or without NAT, pfsense needs to >> have an interface on both networks, and host that want to talk to the >> other network need a route there. How does NAT simplify your setup? >> >> db > > You're probably right, especially with SIP. Now that have changed my mind, I > have to convince the other network admin… >
I would use OpenVPN for such a situation. It's better in any situation to have subnets without the same address space. Since you're using pfSense, it's easy to setup an OpenVPN connection. With SIP the traffic then is only routed and not NATted, wich could give a lot of trouble. Regards, Pim van Stam > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
