1 |
On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:51:42 BST Grant Taylor wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/10/2018 12:30 PM, Mick wrote: |
3 |
> > If NAT'ed between guest and host and then NAT'ed again at the home |
4 |
> > router, you are double NAT'ed. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Or possibly triple NATed if your ISP is using Carrier Grade NAT. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> At least that's one definition of "double NAT". I tend to use a |
9 |
> different definition, one where you're NATing source and destination in |
10 |
> a single device. As opposed to doing a single NAT operation on multiple |
11 |
> devices. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > As far as I know VPNs will not work through a double NAT situation, |
14 |
> > unless you use your gateway or host as the VPN end point and then |
15 |
> > setup port forwarding to the host from there. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I see no reason why SSL or SSH based VPNs wouldn't work perfectly fine |
18 |
> through many layers of NAT. |
19 |
|
20 |
You'll need a trusted gateway to do the unwrapping and then forwarding to the |
21 |
next hop (SSH forwarding). If you attempt TCP-tunneling (TCP-over-TCP) you'll |
22 |
soon experience 'TCP meltdown' with upper and lower TCP layers' retransmission |
23 |
timeouts. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
> I also think that it should be possible to get IPSec VPNs to work |
27 |
> through multiple layers of NAT. You'd need to account for the AH issues |
28 |
> or ESP without AH. |
29 |
|
30 |
How will you be able to account for such a multi-NAT routing arrangement if |
31 |
(in tunnel rather than transport mode) the original entire IP datagram is |
32 |
encrypted and encapsulated? You'll need to decrypt it, take the payload and |
33 |
read its IP header before you know where to forward it to. On single NAT you |
34 |
encapsulate the IPSec into UDP (NAT-Traversal), but on a double NAT what will |
35 |
you do? I've never heard of double/triple NAT-T without port forwarding ... |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
> Each layer of NAT makes VPNs more difficult, but not impossible. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Depending on the type of VPN, each layer of NAT may mean that you must |
41 |
> be the only person using that type of VPN to avoid confusing the NAT / |
42 |
> breaking all of that type of VPN. |
43 |
|
44 |
Do you mean VPN within UDP within VPN? You'll need intermediate VPN gateways |
45 |
for this. |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
> > Bridge the host to guest adaptors and you should be good to go (once |
49 |
> > any other conventionla VPN configuration problem is solved). :-) |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Hilco's issue was what is routed through the VPN, not a problem with |
52 |
> establishing said VPN. |
53 |
|
54 |
Quite, we've gone off-piste here. |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Regards, |
58 |
Mick |