Unix Technical Forum

Re: IP tunnelling: ssh vs native

This is a discussion on Re: IP tunnelling: ssh vs native within the comp.unix.solaris forums, part of the Solaris Operating System category; --> On 28 Jul 2003 12:43:47 -0700, phil.googlenews@bolthole.com wrote: >... >I tried setting up IP tunnelling, via ip.tun0, but I ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Unix Operating Systems > Solaris Operating System > comp.unix.solaris

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-05-2008, 01:59 PM
Philip Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: IP tunnelling: ssh vs native

On 28 Jul 2003 12:43:47 -0700, phil.googlenews@bolthole.com wrote:
>...
>I tried setting up IP tunnelling, via ip.tun0, but I couldnt get it to
>actually send the packets. The route showed up appropriately, but no
>actual packets got sent :-(


My own stupid fault... turns out I also had sunscreen installed on the box.
Which, while having an ALMOST wide open policy... wasnt wide enough :-}

For the record, it is possible to use ip tunelling without any encryption
just fine. So, I can now reach the "private" interface of a server using IP
tunnelling.

The trick is apparently that you have to use a throwaway IP address on your
local endpoint. Or some address other than the one you use to talk
directly to the server, at any rate.
You need to have a pair of addresses for the tunnel "endpoints",
and then a DIFFERENT pair of addresses for the traffic inside the tunnel.



--- Sample configuration ----------------------------------------



server
10.1.1.1, 192.168.1.1

client machine
10.4.6.8


throwaway endpoint addr, that I just made up:
192.168.50.50

on client machine:

ifconfig ip.tun0 plumb
ifconfig ip.tun0 192.168.50.50 192.168.1.1 tsrc 10.4.6.8 tdst 10.1.1.1 up

on server:

ifconfig ip.tun0 plumb
ifconfig ip.tun0 192.168.1.1 192.168.50.50 tsrc 10.1.1.1 tdst 10.4.6.8 up



--
http://www.blastwave.org/ for solaris pre-packaged binaries with pkg-get
Organized by the author of pkg-get
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...5:SN01618:@@@D
http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com