home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.dcom.vpn      VPN protocols, clients, awesomeness      2,348 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 1,649 of 2,348   
   Mark Alexander Bertenshaw to mike-newsgroup@-DELETETHISPART-.upc   
   Re: Static route through Netscreen Remot   
   06 Jun 05 10:55:23   
   
   From: mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net   
      
   "Mike Drechsler - SPAM PROTECTED EMAIL"   
    wrote in message   
   news:j8Ooe.52177$W62.10516@fe10.news.easynews.com...   
   > Mark Alexander Bertenshaw wrote:   
   > > Hi -   
   > >   
   > > My network is acessible by via a VPN tunnel via Netscreen Remote 8.3 to   
   a   
   > > Netscreen 5GT.  The trust interface is 192.168.0.1.  Connections to   
   > > 192.168.0.0/24 hosts from my users' remote PCs work fine.  However, we   
   have   
   > > a 10.0.0.0/24 network whose gateway is at 192.168.0.2.  Unfortunately,   
   there   
   > > seems to be no way to tell Windows 2000 to route packets to 10.0.0.0/24   
   via   
   > > 192.168.0.1, because the "deterministic network enhancer" which is used   
   by   
   > > the Netscreen Remote software is under the radar of basic Windows 2000   
   > > TCP/IP.  That is, "route ADD 10.0.0.0 MASK 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2   
   METRIC   
   > > 1 IF 0x2" does not work, because not unreasonably, there is no official   
   > > route to the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet.   
   > >   
   > > Does anybody know whether it is possible to hack this so 10.0.0.0/24   
   packets   
   > > are sent down the invisible VPN interface?  Looking at the Netscreen   
   Remote   
   > > software, there doesn't appear to be any way to add this, short of   
   creating   
   > > a completely separate tunnel for this interface (I imagine that I would   
   have   
   > > to bind a 10.0.0.x address to a new VPN gateway, somehow).   
   > >   
   > > Any ideas?   
   > >   
   > > --   
   > > Mark Bertenshaw   
   > > Kingston upon Thames   
   > > UK   
   >   
   > You need to add another subnet to the existing tunnel or if your user   
   > interface only allows a single local and a single remote subnet when   
   > defining a tunnel then you will need to create a second tunnel to the   
   > same endpoint.   
      
   That's what I thought.  All rather annoying.   
      
   --   
   Mark   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca