Re: IBM Universal Connection and non-Cisco firwalls with NAT? -- MIDRANGE-L

This is all well and good if you have a cisco or equivalent. The original post asked about non-cisco, IIRC. We are in that position, also, since we use the LinkSys VPN router. It can allow port forwarding to a single internal address. Obviously, it's cheaper than a cisco and I don't expect it to have the power of a cisco. But is there a way to set up a LinkSys or NetGear or other consumer-level router to allow the V5R2 box not to have a public address?

Thanks
Vern

At 08:23 AM 4/21/2004, you wrote:

access-list inside permit udp host x.x.x.x host 207.25.252.196 eq isakmp
access-list inside permit udp host x.x.x.x host 207.25.252.196 eq 4500
access-list inside permit esp host x.x.x.x host 207.25.252.196

The x's will reflect your system's IP address, and you may need to change
the 'inside' to reflect whatever firewall interface your system is attached
to.


These are the commands we needed to use for a Pix 515 to get this working;
the wizard within Ops Nav worked fine for the AS/400 side setup.  I've seen
one of our systems get confused and the VPN setup stopped working-deleting
the universal connection and running the wizard again fixed that.

Hope this helps...

Chad Burrall

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.