Dumb networking question...

[Ken D'Ambrosio]

> An update - when I hook a PC directly to the gateway and use a
> cross-over cable, the VPN connection from the PC client works correctly
> and I can access the systems inside the LAN behind the gateway (ping,
> browse etc.). So I guess the two gateways hooked directly together
> requires the use of a cross-over cable.

Maybe, but a better way of putting it is "when plugging like into like, a
crossover is needed".  It's the same for serial communications vis-a-vis
null modem cables.  So, if you're going from a switch/router/hub to
another switch/router/hub (and not using an uplink port), you'll need to
use a crossover, and the same holds true if you're going from a PC to a
PC.

$.02,

-Ken

> -Alex
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hewitt Tech" <hewitt_tech at attbi.com>
> To: <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Dumb networking question...
>
>
> I agree that two of these devices aren't entirely necessary unless we
> want to use VPNs to access each site where they will eventually be
> installed. I was thinking that it would be easy to stage them to check
> out how the VPN tunnel would work and make any adjustments. The WAN side
> of the gateways should just be talking on a network right? So that means
> that theoretically, I should just be able to assign them to the same
> network segment address and they should see each other and
> communications should work as if they were really hooked up to a DSL or
> Cable-modem. Last night I bypassed my LinkSys firewall/router and tried
> both 3Com boxes and they both worked correctly using the DHCP assigned
> IP addresses (Comcast/Attbi/Mediaone). So at that level they both appear
> to be working correctly. The nice thing about these gateways is that
> they have built-in PPTP/IPsec tunnel servers. That way I don't need to
> expose any systems on the LAN for purposes of establishing a tunnel
> connection. I guess if these two boxes were directly hooked together
> they would need a cross-over cable between them but today I thought I'd
> use a cross-over cable tied directly to a PC to see if that will work
> using just one gateway box.
>
> -Alex
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Derek Martin" <gnhlug at sophic.org>
> To: <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Dumb networking question...
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 07:40:15PM -0500, Hewitt Tech wrote:
>> My question is "Do I have the gateway addresses set correctly. The
>> only thing connecting the two hubs is the CAT5 cable. My assumption is
>> that setting the first device's gateway address to the device 2's
>> static WAN address and vice-versa should allow the two hubs to
>> communicate properly.
>
> I'd have to say that this is almost certainly wrong.  As far as I can
> see, you've created a routing loop.  But I can't begin to make
> suggestions as to how to fix it, since I don't know what the rest of the
> network looks like.  That you need two of these devices seems
> dubious, but without understanding what you're trying to accomplish,
> it's hard to say where to go from here.
>
> - --
> Derek D. Martin
> http://www.pizzashack.org/
> GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+iRPdHEnASN++rQIRAjeUAKCKcDkP3kS4TRYmZYnVpdG3/R8+6gCbBsI3
> zmp39tumoHO+ylVAVsSIVDU=
> =cQGM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss