Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko
evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
I can not ping 10.29.11.1 or 10.29.11.2 from any host connected to LAN
pfSense1. Traffic does not go over IPSec but instead natted and
goes
Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko
evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
I can not ping 10.29.11.1 or 10.29.11.2 from any host connected to LAN
pfSense1. Traffic does not go over IPSec but instead natted and goes to
Internet.
On WAN (ng0):
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
I know it looks stupid, but...
1.2.3-RC1
LAN=10.29.1.19/24
WAN(PPPoE)=x.x.x.106
remote LAN=10.29.11.1/24
remote WAN=x.x.x.225
Tunnel is up.
When I do from pfSense itself ping -S 10.29.1.19 10.29.11.1
Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
Scott
So, it is impossible to use IPSec with PPPoE on WAN?
Eugene
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
So, it is impossible to use IPSec with PPPoE on WAN?
Eugene
That would be news to me. It should work fine.
Scott
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
Scott
So, it is impossible to use IPSec
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
Then sorry Scott, I do not understand your statement: Traffic on the
firewall itself prefers the system routing table. Clients behind the
firewall will prefer the IPSEC tunnel.
In my case traffic initiated on the
On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
if you want connections initiated by the
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
Then sorry Scott, I do not understand your statement: Traffic on the
firewall itself prefers the system routing table. Clients behind the
firewall will prefer the IPSEC tunnel.
In my case
Paul Mansfield wrote:
On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
if you want
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
Paul Mansfield wrote:
On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
I can not ping 10.29.11.1 or 10.29.11.2 from any host connected to LAN
pfSense1. Traffic does not go over IPSec but instead natted and goes to
Internet.
On WAN (ng0):
20:29:13.951253 IP x.x.x.106 10.29.11.1: ICMP
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko evg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
I can not ping 10.29.11.1 or 10.29.11.2 from any host connected to LAN
pfSense1. Traffic does not go over IPSec but instead natted and goes to
Internet.
On WAN (ng0):
20:29:13.951253 IP
13 matches
Mail list logo
