[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PPTP and removing GRE on 3.2
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: PPTP and removing GRE on 3.2
- From: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:06:43 -0500
- Mail-followup-to: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Reply-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
Quoting T. Ribbrock (emgaron_(_at_)_gmx_(_dot_)_net):
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 05:13:43AM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:
> > Did you bother to read my reply? It's all about tunnelling pptp (gre)
> > through a 3.2 firewall. Get your head out of your ass and READ.
> I read *your* mail - did you actually read mine?
> Your mail talks about VPN stuff (which I know nothing about), not about
> the modem-via-pptp situation I was talking about.
PPTP is microsoft's attempt at VPN software, ok?
PPTP == VPN
Yes, it's not actually secure, but that's the MS factor.
For almost everyone in the world, when using a "pp" tool for
DSL/cable, you really want PPoE. You seem to have that unusual
situation. (we won't even discuss PoE for powering remote devices
over ethernet :).
> If you intention is to tell me that your solution applies to my problem
> as well, then say so, as that is exactly the part that is unclear to me,
> otherwise I wouldn't have written my mail. So, to put it more
> precisely: Do I have to assume that I have to regard the modem as
> some kind of VPN client or suchlike? So, that would mean that the same
> type of solution applies?