| NBG5715 pptp passthrough Hi,
I can't connect with windows pptp vpn through the NBG5715 router... is the vpn passthrough setting hidden somewhere? I can't find it--
Thanks! |
|
| Did you get an answer? I have excatly the same problem! Please let me know  |
|
 BranoI hate VogonsPremium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:3
 ·Bell Fibe
| reply to sckramer
You can't connect from LAN->WAN or WAN->LAN?
For WAN->LAN you need firewall hole for PPTP.
To allow PPTP tunnel maintenance traffic, open TCP 1723.
To allow PPTP tunneled data to pass through router, open Protocol ID 47.
For LAN->WAN I'm assuming default FW rule is Allow all. |
|
| LAN->WAN, firewall is just whatever the factory default is--
usually in these consumer routers there's a checkbox for allow vpn passthough, this is nowhere to be found-- |
|
| I had/have the same problem. And had alot of email traffic with Zyxel support.
I've found out following:
We could solve the problem by setting the "Default server" in the NAT settings to the PPTP server. It's not the perfect solution because all requests will be forwarded to the PPTP server with exception of the defined ports in the NAT Settings.
PPTP Passthrough with NAT Port forwarding for "PPTP Port 1723" to the PPTP Server IP without setting the "Default Server" to the PPTP-Server is not working.
ANSWER FROM ZyXEL:
We will fix it in next FCS F/W. |
|
| ok cool, at least zyxel knows about this & will fix in next f/w |
|
 AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3
1 edit | With the chipsets onboard this thing should be easily capable of throughputs of 800Mbps up and down and at least 300,000 connections. They must have really frigged the firmware.
edit my bad meant 30,000 connection. |
|
| 300k nat connection is going to wreck havoc on the memory if this is a Linux device with iptables running.
--
"Perl is executable line noise, Python is executable pseudo-code."
|
|
AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3
3 edits | Well considering you have hardware nat on the chips (including the atheros switch chip (which also is 8021q and 802.1p capble) and the ralink RT3883 chip, the capabilities to route vlan and video data via hardware switching vice matching macs and doing it via software are signficant (less load cpu). The Ralinks have a hardware nat processing engine as well.
fixed post numbers above, whats an xtra zero (nothing right).
Speaking bout linux, what are bogomips and buckets anyway? |
|
| said by Anav:Well considering you have hardware nat on the chips (including the atheros switch chip (which also is 8021q and 802.1p capble) and the ralink RT3883 chip, the capabilities to route vlan and video data via hardware switching vice matching macs and doing it via software are signficant (less load cpu). The Ralinks have a hardware nat processing engine as well.
You need to store each of those connections somewhere ie RAM, how many bytes per session? Then there is the latency of the access to ram and new incoming packets queing up.
said by Anav:fixed post numbers above, whats an xtra zero (nothing right).
Speaking bout linux, what are bogomips and buckets anyway?
Still even 30K taxes the ram, has anybody seen any tests with 30k sessions running? I highly doubt there is great performance in that area, regardless of Vendor that pushes those claims. Unless you are deploying some serious iron.
Wiki usually works out well
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BogoMips
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_(computing)
Btw buckets can be empty and non-empty....
--
"Perl is executable line noise, Python is executable pseudo-code."
|
|
