From owner-freebsd-security Mon Dec 6 20:31:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from shorty.ahpcns.com (joemoore-host.dsl.visi.com [209.98.246.61]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286D014CFD for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:31:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jomor@ahpcns.com) Received: from ahpcns.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shorty.ahpcns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A511ED for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:31:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <384C8D8B.4E55CC4A@ahpcns.com> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 04:31:08 +0000 From: jomor Organization: ahpcns X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: can IPFW & NAT co-exist with kame IPSEC? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I want to add support for kame IPSEC (for net-to-net tunnelling) capability to my existing firewall/NAT box. The box is running freebsd 3.3-STABLE. I am networking with IP-V4 and don't want to go to V6 at this time. Does anyone know if this is possible? or do I need a dedicated box for tunnel end-points? If it's possible, what firewall rule modifications do I need so tunnel-bound traffic doesn't get NAT'ed? Both of the LANs involved use "private" IP addressing internally. ANY help is much appreciated. TIA ...jgm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message