Traditional IPSEC uses IP protocols 50 and 51, and udp/500, correct? My
thought was that if Charter blocks certain TCP/UDP ports, then they
might also block IP protocols other than 1, 6 or 17. That would make
IPSEC impossible, which was my concern. Newer implementations of IPSEC
re-encapsulate the entire IPSEC packet in another transport session to
avoid NAT entanglements, in which case you can configure your particular
implementation to use ports > 1024, but that does not apply to us. We
use old-school IPSEC.

--Eric


        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Todd A. Jacobs [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Sent:   Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:05 AM
        To:     Eric Robinson
        Cc:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Subject:        Re: [RLUG] Charter and VPNs

        On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Eric Robinson wrote:

        > connectivity is okay for my application, then is there a
problem running
        > a gateway-to-gateway IPSEC tunnel on consumer-grade Charter
service? How
        > thorough is Charter's packet filtering?

        Yes. IPSEC usually doesn't have any impact on what ports are
used. Even in 
        ESP mode, the source/destination ports are usually unchanged.
You might be 
        able to find an implementation that changes this behavior, but
it would be 
        non-standard, and would certainly break the AH protocol.

        You might be better off investigating stunnel or cipe. Cipe in
particular 
        will allow you to tunnel over a specified port, so you can set
it above 
        1024 to bypass the filters Charter uses.

        Again, note that this is a non-standard methodology, so you will
need to 
        do this with Linux boxen, and not with an industry-standard
appliance. It 
        should work well enough for what you've described, but it may
politically 
        be a hot potato in your environment. YMMV.

        -- 
        Todd's "Customer Disservice Hall of Shame" currently contains:
            - Charter Communications: Mislead their customers about
services,
              and block Internet connectivity.
            - AT&T: Honoring the "checks" they send out to entice you to
switch
              long-distance providers is apparently optional.
            - eFax: Receive (not send) 20 pages of *unsolicited* faxes,
and lose
              your account. 

        


DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is intended solely for the above-mentioned recipient and it 
may contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in error, 
please notify us immediately at 775-885-2211 and delete the e-mail. You must not copy, 
distribute, disclose or take any action in reliance on it. 

This e-mail message and any attached files have been scanned for the presence of 
computer viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own 
risk.

_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug

Reply via email to