From: Derek A. Buelna (dameon@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Dec 27 1999 - 20:12:52 GMT-3
That's pretty cool! I think that might work!
I was thinking about R2 and how it's doing exactly what it is supposed to,
sort of...
I was leading towards adding considerable complexity, which isn't great.
With BGP, I believe you could configure EBGP between the two tunnel
interfaces and route based on paths traversed - essentially if it goes
through the R1 AS then then tunnel from R1 is preferable.
Although this would certainly be painful, do you think it would work?
-Derek
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Hedlund [SMTP:BHedlund@LifeTimeFitness.com]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 1:13 PM
To: 'Schwimer, Greg (CAP, ITS, US)'; CCIE Lab group (E-mail)
Cc: Mitchell, Tim (CAP, ITS, US); Vohs, Todd M (CAP, ITS, US)
Subject: RE: Forcing return IP route
Configure NAT on R1 such that packets from the IPSec client going to R2 are
translated to a source address that would make R2 route it back over the
tunnel. ?
-Brad
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schwimer, Greg (CAP, ITS, US)
> [mailto:Greg.Schwimer@gecits.ge.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 10:31 AM
> To: CCIE Lab group (E-mail)
> Cc: Mitchell, Tim (CAP, ITS, US); Vohs, Todd M (CAP, ITS, US)
> Subject: Forcing return IP route
>
>
> Does anyone know of a way to force a router to route IP reply
> packets (as in
> a ping, for example) through the same interface the request
> came in on?
> Static routes are not an option. Here is the scenario:
>
>
>
> IPSec Client
> !
> !
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:22:00 GMT-3