A doubt on IPSEC & NAT

[Lisa Phifer]

Yes, I'm afraid it's my typo - the range should indeed be
172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255

Lisa


At 02:27 PM 2/21/2001 -0700, Mike Forrester wrote:
>Actually, according to RFC 1918 it should be 172.16.0.0/12 (or 172.16/12)
>which is the range from 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255 (not 172.31.0.0).
>
>http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc1918.html
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "married" <married at ziplip.com>
>To: <VPN at SECURITYFOCUS.COM>
>Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 12:12 AM
>Subject: Re: A doubt on IPSEC & NAT
>
>
> > I think there are a couple of Cisco guys on this list.
> > The private address range for class B is 172.16.0.0 to
> > 172.31.0.0 and not only 172.16.0.0/24 as the page states. Probably just a
>typo :-)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hugo Caye [mailto:Hugo at MICMAC.COM.BR]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001, 11:41 PM
> > > To: VPN at SECURITYFOCUS.COM
> > > Subject: Re: A doubt on IPSEC & NAT
> > >
> > > There is an interesting article titled "The Trouble with NAT" (by Lisa
> > > Phifer) at:
> > > <http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-4/ipj_3-4_nat.html>.
> > >
> > > Interesting because it give us a NAT's overview and explains why IPSec
> > > and NAT shouldn't (and some times can) work.

VPN is sponsored by SecurityFocus.COM