On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Danny Cox wrote:
> Ok .. things are clarifying further for me. I understand that in order
> to use Novell's IPX tunnelling within IP it has to be run using UDP.
>
> Given general attitudes towards UDP through firewalls I'm a little
> troubled by this. Would the general concensus here be to not do it?
> Would there be easy ways of improving this ? eg have some proxyish sort of
> thing which accepts UDP and squirts out TCP for passing thro' the fw?
>
> Furthermore .. what are the implications of letting IPX through. Should
> this traffic be filtered in anyway ? If it makes any difference, and I'm
> not at all convinced it does, our plan will be to run it through modems
> and/or ISDN. I guess that will have to go through some sort of Terminal
> Server. I suppose if we do let IPX through like this, then we could
> effectively use the Internet as our connection medium for an IPX based
> VPN?? Actually, thinking on .. we plan to connect our LANs between this
> site and our new one using Kilostream links. We'll use ISDN as a backup.
> I think there are thoughts about using a product by Novell - I forget its
> name. I suspect that won't combine with the firewall too well. So my
> idea would be to firewall the lot and, as I say, tunnel the IPX through
> it.
>
> Any comments ?
> Thanks .. Danny
>
Although it may turn out to be trivial compared to other concerns, you
may want to consider performance and bandwidth requirements. Have you
considered Novell's IP as an alternative to tunnelling IPX? Perhaps that
is the Novell product whose name you forgot. In re: ISDN, I don't
believe that it matters that the higher level protocol is IPX or IP. More
than likely, you will be incapusulating the lower level packets in PPP
anyway.
**** cjolley @
iac .
net <Carl Jolley>
**** All opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer ****
References:
|
|
