| 1 |
On 06/10/2018 12:30 PM, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> If NAT'ed between guest and host and then NAT'ed again at the home |
| 3 |
> router, you are double NAT'ed. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Or possibly triple NATed if your ISP is using Carrier Grade NAT. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
At least that's one definition of "double NAT". I tend to use a |
| 8 |
different definition, one where you're NATing source and destination in |
| 9 |
a single device. As opposed to doing a single NAT operation on multiple |
| 10 |
devices. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> As far as I know VPNs will not work through a double NAT situation, |
| 13 |
> unless you use your gateway or host as the VPN end point and then |
| 14 |
> setup port forwarding to the host from there. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I see no reason why SSL or SSH based VPNs wouldn't work perfectly fine |
| 17 |
through many layers of NAT. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I also think that it should be possible to get IPSec VPNs to work |
| 20 |
through multiple layers of NAT. You'd need to account for the AH issues |
| 21 |
or ESP without AH. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Each layer of NAT makes VPNs more difficult, but not impossible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Depending on the type of VPN, each layer of NAT may mean that you must |
| 26 |
be the only person using that type of VPN to avoid confusing the NAT / |
| 27 |
breaking all of that type of VPN. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Bridge the host to guest adaptors and you should be good to go (once |
| 30 |
> any other conventionla VPN configuration problem is solved). :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Hilco's issue was what is routed through the VPN, not a problem with |
| 33 |
establishing said VPN. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Grant. . . . |
| 39 |
unix || die |
Archives