On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 19:34, Drew Einhorn wrote: > Oooo ... I was afraid that was going to be the answer. > > I'll wait a bit and see if someone has a better idea before starting > in on renumbering a network. > > On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 10:30, Ray Leach wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 18:03, Drew Einhorn wrote: > > > My LAN uses network segments 192.168.0.0/24, 192.168.1.0/24, etc. > > > So does the remote network I need to vpn to (probably using some flavor > > > of pptp). > > > > > > Is there an odd nat variant that will solve this problem. > > > Probably need to do some kind of dns transformation on each side. > > > > > > Is there any easy solution. Perhaps it would be easier (but not easy) > > > to get the network segments renumbered on one end or the other. > > > > Oooo ... I would go with the second option. Get one end renumbered. Yes. I had another thought (those are rare for me) What if you created a network between the two networks. Like this: Net1 <-> VPN (CIPE) <-> New NET <-> VPN (CIPE) <-> Net2 Then your routing would be to the new network. Maybe use some kind of NAT rules to map the new net back to the dest net. For example: Net1.host1 (192.168.0.1) wants to connect to net2.host1 (192.168.0.1) He actually connects to 10.0.0.1 and the VPN/Router1 does a SNAT to its IP. VPN/Router2 does a DNAT for the traffic from 10.0.0.1 back to 192.168.0.1 VPN/Router1 has to have a route for 10.0.0.1 pointing to VPN/Router2 Do the same on the other side. I was thinking of something along the lines of the P-O-M 1:1 NAT patch. Does this make sense, and might it work? Ray
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
