Re: VPN routing from NAT to NAT
From: Bob (spam_at_spam.com)
Date: 05/07/04
- Next message: Bob: "Re: VPN ports"
- Previous message: Shenan Stanley: "Re: Remote Desktop thru Port 80"
- In reply to: Jeffrey Randow (MVP): "Re: VPN routing from NAT to NAT"
- Next in thread: Bob: "Re: VPN routing from NAT to NAT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 11:17:39 GMT
On Thu, 06 May 2004 20:44:45 -0500, "Jeffrey Randow (MVP)"
<jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com> wrote:
>You have two routes to the 192.168.1.0 network using different
>gateway... This is not standard internet design...
That's because it's Microsoft. My response is: "If it works, don't fix
it."
Isn't it a bit strange that with the MS PPTP VPN, there are no
apparent problems caused by this abberant practivce? Isn't it strange
that nowhere in the documentation for the PPTP VPN does MS mention the
necessity for different subnets?
Could it be that MS has circumvented this issue? Naw.
Your comments have been helpful. I will keep them in mind if I run
into any problems related to subnet clashes.
-- Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/ "You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas." --David Crockett
- Next message: Bob: "Re: VPN ports"
- Previous message: Shenan Stanley: "Re: Remote Desktop thru Port 80"
- In reply to: Jeffrey Randow (MVP): "Re: VPN routing from NAT to NAT"
- Next in thread: Bob: "Re: VPN routing from NAT to NAT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|