|
Posted by Robert on June 12, 2008, 5:18 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options I made a mistake. It will not be SNA traffic, but there will be some
Netbios. I'm not sure if I just try to do an L2TP bridge over VPN or
if DLSW still works for any-ol bridge traffic. Does it?
These are 4690 IBM POS (cash register) controllers.
The SAP addresses I need to transfer are:
Protocol and SAP address in HEX
NetBIOS = F0
RPL = F8 and FC
TCC = E8
Can I still use DLSW with this?
-Bob
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:21:16 -0400, "Scott Perry"
>A common IPsec VPN will work. I have done this over IPsec using Cisco VPN
>concentrators and GRE tunnels between Cisco routers.
>The important part is to have the DLSw circuit run between an IP address on
>each device which would best be configured on a loopback interface IP
>address on both devices. Once the VPN connection is established, the
>loopbacks of each DLSw peer will be accessible to the other, no matter what
>Internet IP address the VPN tunnel is going across. This would be the case
>when configuring a lan-to-lan or site-to-site VPN, not a RAS (remote access)
>VPN that a single host would use.
>
>Will the SNA traffic be used to connect mainframe controllers on one side of
>a WAN connection to a mainframe on the other side of the connection? If so,
>consider using SNA switching from the remote router to the mainframe.
>
>-----
>Scott Perry
>Indianapolis, IN
>-----
>
>>I have a need to "bridge" SNA/Netbios traffic between two LAN's over
>> the Internet. What is the minimum method of VPN that will accomplish
>> this?
>>
>> I know I need to configure DLSW, but before I start figuring out the
>> config syntax, does anyone know if a basic IPSEC VPN will work? Or do
>> I need to use a GRE tunnel to get a virtual Tunnel interface?
>>
>> The problem is one end of the link will have a dynamic IP, so a basic
>> crypto VPN tunnel would be nice. If I have to step up to GRE+IPSEC to
>> make DLSW work, then I'll need to move up to DMVPN to get dynamic IP
>> support on the remote end. That means my minimum router will need to
>> be something that handles 12.4(T) I think. More $$
>>
>> The remote end is somebody's house, hence the desire to keep costs
>> down.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>
|