Re: Universal Connection Woes -- MIDRANGE-L

What I was told is that V5R1 Universal Connection is a VPN and doesn't handle
the NAT change in address of the iSeries. The NAT is viewed as an alteration of
the packet and thus a violation of the VPN security.

There was a hint that V5R2 should be able to VPN through a NAT device.

If your iSeries had a public address and the firewall was just doing port
blocking Universal Connection should work.

Roger Vicker, CCP

Vernon Hamberg wrote:

> I'm also interested in this. Have 2 400s behind a firewall. We have a Cisco
> 675 DSL modem that has a 255.255.255.248 subnet on our side of it, and
> those are true Internet addresses. The firewall (LinkSys DSL/cable gateway
> thingy) has it's WAN port with one of these public addresses. The 400s are
> ont he inside of this device.
>
> When I had one of the 400s outside this firewall (open to the public) I was
> able to set up and use the VPN (Universal Connection) methodology for PTF
> orders. Now that I'm behind the firewall, neither machine completes a
> SNDPTFORD.
>
> At 02:41 PM 8/12/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >I'm having a devil of a time setting up the Universal Connection to
> >IBM.  I'm about to call Supportline 'cause the farther I go, the more
> >confused I get.  I've looked at articles, the redbook, and I thought I
> >knew what I was doing.  I tried the Universal Connection Wizard a number
> >of times but never can get it to work.  I tried the 'direct connection'
> >as well as 'multi-hop connection.'  I don't do router configs so I even
> >paid the consultant to open the ports the redbook said were required
> >(for direct connection that is).
> >
> >Before I call supportline though, I gotta get a couple of things cleared
> >up in my head.  What we have is a Cisco 1605 router.  This has 2
> >ethernet cards in it, 1 'internal' and 1 'external'.  The internal is IP
> >address 192.168.0.250.  The external is IP address 216.xxx.xxx.xxx.
> >(The iSeries is 192.168.0.1 with a gateway of 192.168.0.250 which is the
> >internal side of the router).
> >
> >Based on the redbook description and pictures <g>, I did not take this
> >to be a 'multi-hop connection', but took it as a 'direct connection'.  I
> >didn't think that this single router was 2 routers like the example in
> >the redbook, because both routers in the redbook examples had routable
> >IP addresses like 123.12.xxx.xxx and not internal only addresses like
> >192.168.xxx.xxx.  The redbook also called this the DMZ (Demilitarized
> >Zone) and I never considered us as having a DMZ.  Am I right on this or
> >am I really confused?  I don't want to pay a big consultant fee to set
> >this up when it seems like it should be relatively simple.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >--
> >Jeff Crosby
> >Dilgard Frozen Foods, Inc.
> >P.O. Box 13369
> >Ft. Wayne, IN 46868-3369
> >260-422-7531
>

--
*** Vicker Programming and Service *** Have bits will byte *** www.vicker.com
***
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.