Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
PIX VPN Question
From: "Richard Worwood" <richardw () tdbnetworks com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:22:14 +0100
Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question, but I don't know the answer so I'm guessing it's not too stupid. What ports on a nat need to be statically defined to allow communication between a cisco nat client on the inside and a PIX on the outside? Additionally would these ports be the same if I wanted to put a PIX behind the nat creating the VPN tunnel instead of multiple VPN clients? Thanks in advance and apologies again if this is a stupid/ignorant question. ________________________________________________________ Richard Worwood, TDB Networks 4 High Street, Twyford, Berkshire RG10 9AE Mobile: +44 (0) 7771 662880 Email: richardw () tdbnetworks com _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Anti-Warchalking attack? Paul Robertson (Sep 03)
- PIX VPN Question Richard Worwood (Sep 03)
- Re: Anti-Warchalking attack? Marcus J. Ranum (Sep 03)
- Re: Anti-Warchalking attack? Darren Reed (Sep 03)
- Re: Anti-Warchalking attack? H. Morrow Long (Sep 03)
- Re: Anti-Warchalking attack? Paul D. Robertson (Sep 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Anti-Warchalking attack? Behm, Jeffrey L. (Sep 04)
- RE: Anti-Warchalking attack? Scott, Richard (Sep 04)
- RE: Anti-Warchalking attack? Paul D. Robertson (Sep 04)
- Re: Anti-Warchalking attack? John McDermott (Sep 04)
- RE: Anti-Warchalking attack? Paul D. Robertson (Sep 04)