Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (
More info?)
Or getting L2TP working with NAT...
Now of course, there is the Linksys router out there that can be
reprogrammed with different firmware (linux kernel) that could
possibly support this under your $150 limit...
Jeffrey Randow (Windows Net. & Smart Display MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
be answered depending on time availability....
Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
Windows XP Expert Zone -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:58:35 -0400, "JRC" <pooh@jrehmconsulting.net>
wrote:
>I find it interesting that you consider anything over $150 "expensive",
>considering the functionality you seek. I also doubt you will find many
>self-respecting manufacturers terminating L2TP or PPTP.
>
>By the way, what kind of wacky setup do you have where you need to support
>L2TP, PPTP and IPSec all at the same time?
>
>
>
>"Pawan Singh" <k2k2e6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:79c5552.0404252119.5a7e0d00@posting.google.com...
>> After extensive research on the web, I will post this for future
>> user's benefit:
>>
>> 1. Most home user routers do not support multiple IPSec or PPTP or
>> L2TP passthroughs through the NAT.
>>
>> 2. Most companies tech support agent are clueless about problem #1 - I
>> personally was on the phone with Level 2 tech support guys at Linksys,
>> Netgear and Dlink and none of them knew much. They knew only to
>> regurgitate the product data sheets which simply claim VPN
>> passthroughs without letting you know how many you can pass through.
>>
>> 3. Number of passthroughs are important only if you have multiple
>> adult workers working remotely from home and need to join separate
>> VPNs. The solution in this case is to buy more expensive routers which
>> do multiple passthroughs or buy routers which actually "terminate" an
>> IPSec, L2TP or PPTP tunnels. Even here, you will find many expensive
>> routers (> $150) which terminate IPSec tunnels, but very few of them
>> terminate L2TP or PPTP tunnels.
>>
>> 4. It is very hard to find information about routers which do #3. Most
>> of the time you will find routers which terminate IPSec tunnels. But
>> many users like me want routers which terminate PPTP or L2TP and
>> information on that is very hard to come by. Someone in this email
>> chain pointed Snapgear which can terminate PPTP or L2TP but I am
>> assuming it will be an expensive router.
>>
>> If anyone knows about a sub $150 router which can terminate multiple
>> IPSec or multiple PPTP or multiple L2TP connections and also do
>> multiple IPSec passthroughs and multiple PPTP passthroughs and
>> multiple L2TP passthroughs, please reply on this post because Google
>> search will help future users.
>>
>> Please do not reply if you are not well versed in this field because
>> it will only confuse future users who search these forums looking for
>> information.
>>
>> -Pawan
>>
>>
>> spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message
>news:<408bc45a.86543272@news-server.houston.rr.com>...
>> > On 24 Apr 2004 16:06:44 -0700, k2k2e6@yahoo.com (Pawan Singh) wrote:
>> >
>> > >I have a Netgear router at home and my home network is behind the NAT
>> > >network provided by this router. I connect from this home network to
>> > >work using Windows XP's built in VPN software.
>> >
>> > You should specify which VPN: PPTP or IPSec. Later you do mention
>> > IPSec so the reader has to presume you meant IPSec from the outset.
>> >
>> > >What I am finding is
>> > >that if two client machines from my home network start VPN tunnels to
>> > >outside, only one of them works. The other one does not. A single VPN
>> > >tunnel works perfectly.
>> >
>> > Are both tunnels connecting to the same VPN Server or different VPN
>> > Servers?
>> >
>> > I believe MS VPNs only support one connection at a time, so if you are
>> > trying to connect two VPN Client machines to one remote VPN Server,
>> > that may be the problem.
>