A doubt on IPSEC & NAT

[Ole J. Jacobsen]

Indeed a typo and it is intersting how many (or how few) people read it
that carefully. We will printg a correcting in the next issue.

Ole



Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Lisa Phifer wrote:

> 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