"T. Sean Weintz" wrote:
>PJ wrote:
>
>> It is pretty common for a remote wifi network to be using NAT, no? It
>> seems I've never been able to get the VPN to work on a few different
>> wireless networks, and I'm guessing this is why.
>>
>> The way I understand this is, it's quite a brick wall. I'm curious as
>> to how other companies resolve such problems though. I'm sure we're
>> not the only company with end-users that see an Intel centrino
>> commercial and expect to have the world at their fingertips from any
>> park bench in the world without any problems, including secure access
>> into the corp network. Do a lot of companies just run terminal
>> server/citrix/PC Anywhere/etc type remote connectivity straight with
>> no VPN tunnel for wireless clients?
>>
>> Muchos thanks and thanks to any more ideas,
>>
>> PJ
>
>Some NAT boxes do support NAT traversal - but it seems to be very
>non-standardized as to how it works. Most of the time you won't be able
>to do it.
>
>The way we get around it is exactly what you guessed - Citrix.
>
>-T. Sean Weintz
Implementing NAT traversal is not only non-standards conforming but also
might get some gorrilas on their backs.
The only proven VPN implementation is based on IPsec, the real solid
standard. See http://vpnc.org for standards details.
We implement a mix of IPsec and ssh (openssh, to be exact)
interoperations to, we believe, really fortify VPN over NAT. We secure
both authorization into the wireless network and the traffic.
As you said, if you really just need to remotely connect with some
security, there are lots of Windoze tools.
------------------------------------------------
The leader in Green VPN solutions
http://strongsolutions.addr.com/
------------------------------------------------
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
