[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: More Quick 'n' Easy IPv6 for Debian, Wireless



On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:23:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:46:52AM -0800, Marc Singer wrote:
> > What I'm not finding is how to get this working where there are hosts
> > behind NAT'ing routers.  In this case, a wireless AP that provides
> > limited configurability and no ipv6 support.  Using the already
> 
> If you can configure it to let protocol 41 (ipv6) through, you may be
> able to make things work.  (I have been able to do that going through a
> Shorewall IPV4-only NAT box.)
> 
> However, you may not be able to do that on your AP.  You may need a more
> powerful router.

The router has a VPN passthrough feature which, I believe, is a hack
in the AP that recognizes an ipsec setup sequence and will pass the
ipsec packets through the AP.

> 
> > What I've deduced is that there is a need for another kind of tunnel,
> > either ipip or ipsec.  Am I on the right track?
> 
> Well, that depends on what you're trying to do.  If you're trying to
> join the global IPv6 network, that won't help.  However, AFAIK, you'll
> run into the same issues with IPSec.

That's an interesting wrinkle.  I was figuring that I could setup
routes on the ipv6 connected host that will make this work.

Let's say that I am using 192.0.2.1/28 as my public address and
192.0.2.250/24 as the unroutable wireless network.

The router is called Robin, the wireless note is called Wendy.

Robin is given 192.0.2.1, 192.0.2.251 and 2002:c000:201:1::1.  
Wendy is given 192.0.2.252 and 2002:c000:201:2::1.

With some hand waving, I bridge Robin and Wendy through the AP using
IPSEC such that each can ping the other's 192.0.2.250/28 address.  A
static route is added to each of them such that the 2002:c000:201:1::1
and 2002:c000:201:2::1 networks are ping6'able.  Finally, the default
-6 route for Wendy is set to Robin.  I'd have more results, but I'm
working to get the ipsec tunnel running.

Am I missing something?

> 
> -- John



Reply to: