MSU Listserv


MSUNAG Archives

MSUNAG Archives


MSUNAG@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG  November 2003

MSUNAG November 2003

Subject:

Re: DHCP, VPN, and Firewall combination question

From:

Wendy Tate <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:27:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Joe,

About four years ago I worked for an NGO with a connection to the state's
WAN, and an internet connection. We ran Checkpoint's Firewall 1 with a VPN
system on a Windows NT Server box back then, and it was extremely easy to
support, even running address translation.

Our only problems with running both systems on one box arose in the form of
bottlenecks, when users were working with databases over the VPN, our
performance on the Internet dipped pretty significantly. The lesson we
learned was that it's a good idea to purchase about four times the server
recommended by the VPN manufacturer, because there's some overhead involved
in running one of these products on a Windows server.

I'm afraid I don't have experience running one outside of Windows, or using
a hardware-based firewall solution.

Good luck!
Wendy

Wendy Tate
Network Coordinator - Department of Economics
Michigan State University
101 Marshall Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
[log in to unmask]    517.355.1816

-----Original Message-----
From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Joe Norton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 1:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DHCP, VPN, and Firewall combination question

  This message brings up a subject I could use some input on.  Here we have
a seperate VPN and firewall setup, and they get confused.  Does a straight
firewall that supports VPN work any better?  Are there disadvantages to
having it all on one box?  I can imagine it being cheaper and easier to
support, but are there any security or managment issues that might make it a
bad idea?

-----Original Message-----
From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Doug Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DHCP, VPN, and Firewall combination question


>
>  In the library, we're having a combination problem with DHCP, VPN,
> and our building firewall, and are running out of places to look.
>
>  The firewall blocks Windows ports (137-139, 389, 445, and 3389) at
> the boundary of the Library staff physical network.  We have a VPN server
> inside the staff network.  A PC connects using a DHCP connection in the
> Library (or elsewhere on campus) and gets an IP address that is outside
the
> staff network.  It then connects to the VPN, which assigns it an IP
address
> inside the staff network.  Once that is done, Outlook can connect to our
> mail server (which is inside the staff network), but the PC cannot map to
> shared drives inside the staff network.  It also cannot ping into the
staff
> network.  If I change the firewall to allow the Windows ports from the
> DHCP-assigned IP address, the PC can map to shared drives inside the staff
> network.  (Inference: the packets required to map the drive carry the
> DHCP-assigned IP address, not the VPN-assigned IP.)  However, the same PC,
> connecting from home using DHCP through Comcast and the same VPN
connection,
> can map drives.  (Inferen!  ce!  : the drive is mapped using the
> VPN-assigned IP address.)  Ipconfig shows the same information both in the
> Library and over Comcast, except for the DHCP-assigned IP address and its
> subnet mask (255.255.255.0 for Comcast, 255.248.0.0 in the Library).
>
>  Where should we look next?  When using a VPN connection, what
> determines whether packets are sent with the VPN-assigned IP or the
> DHCP-assigned IP?
>
>  Any hints, tips, or outright solutions will be appreciated!
>         --Bill Wheeler

I don't know of a really good (or simple) solution, but as someone else
pointed out, it has to do with the source IP, VPN server, and destination
IP's all living within the same network.  We have noticed this, too, in
our first attempts to set up our central VPN server.

I suspect this works best when the IP addresses behind the VPN server are
in a separate subnet from those on the "public" side.  One way to solve this
would be to use a firewall with NAT, and use private IP's on all local
systems,
or at least all of the VPN target systems.

Part of the problem here is that many campus systems use a wide netmask
(255.248.0.0), including any which use the campus DNS.  Changing that
netmask may help this particular problem, but the wide netmask is there
to solve other problems, so I don't really want to change that.

It may be necessary to play some routing games on the client PC, although
I hope it doesn't come to that, since it's messy.  However, if you want
to try it, take a look at the ROUTE command.  You may have to change some
of the route metrics, or perhaps delete/replace some of the overlapping
routing entries.

Doug


Doug Nelson                     [log in to unmask]
Network Manager                 Ph: (517) 353-2980
Computer Laboratory             http://www.msu.edu/~nelson/
Michigan State University

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
June 2023
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
December 2021
January 2019
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager