Howard Wilkinson wrote:
tony.chamberlain@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Has anyone had experience with Freeswan?
We have a situation where say there is a Linux machine in City 1 with
IP address 10.0.0.10 (for example)
and a Linux machine in City 2 with an IP address of 10.0.0.20 (for
example). Now these machines are
in different cities, so machine 1 cannot just open a socket on
10.0.0.20 because machine 2 is on a different
network. Each machine does have a router, say City 1 is 65.15.47.28
(for example). To get into City 1from
outside the network you go through thr router, use 65.15.47.28 which
routes into the LAN. The same for
City 2. For a unix process on 10.0.0.10 to send to 10.0.0.20 it would
have to send to 65.15.47.28 which would route
it in. Problem is, its from address would be 10.0.0.10, which the
machine at 10.0.0.20 wouldn't know about.
A process on 10.0.0.20 would have to do something similar to respond.
Now these machines have to actually be able to use each others'
10.0.0.X addresses. I assume this is possible
via a VPN. They don't have any Cicsco VPNs or anything, and they
asked whether it is possible just using
Linux (CentOS) to set up a VPN. I did a bit of searching and found a
couple things. Freeswan seemed to be
the most promising, though other packages could be just as good.
Is the above scenario possible with Freeswan or can you recommend some
other way?
it doesnt particularly matter what vpn transport you choose to go with,
because in the end, you technically have "the same network" at both
ends: 10.0.0.x.
for this to work right, you really need to re-ip one city to be
10.0.1.x. right now, if 10.0.0.10 tried to connect to 10.0.0.20, as it
starts the connection, it compares the destination address to its own
network settings and "oh, this must be local", and polls the local arp
table accordingly.
the trick for 10.0.0.10 to access 10.0.0.20, will be to cause the "local
lan" behavior to be overridden by behavior that causes 10.0.0.10 to hand
the connection off to the router. a static route could be one way:
route add 10.0.0.20 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.0.0.1 eth0
the above statement would cause .20 to be routed thru the defaultgateway
of .1 (for the example i just make an assumption that .1 is your default
gateway...), but .10 would continue to use "local lan behavior" to
access any other host that falls under 10.0.0.x. you would need to
reverse the behavior for the .20 at the other location to access the .10.
if these are the single sole computers that exist at both ends, then the
route statement is simple enough to get you going. as soon as the same
ip exists on a machine at both ends, your asking for a giant can of
worms, and it wouldnt be worth the trouble. at that point, you need to
bite the bullet and re-ip one location, and then it would be as simple
as "just let the vpn-firewalls do their job".
hope this helps,
--
Jonathan Horne
http://dfwlpiki.dfwlp.org
linux08 _@_ dfwlp.com
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
