RE: Why Tom recommended NOT to use a gateway for FW Clients

Put it this way, the firewall client will handle all tcp/udp transaction and
that's about it. If you wish to do other things like ping (icmp) or vpn
(gre) then you need to be a snat client. So think of it as know what it
needs to be when using certain actions

Brian Tirch
Entre Information Services
Mct,mcse4.0/2000,ccna,cca,a+,n+

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Carroll [mailto:nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 7:16 AM
To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
Subject: [isalist] RE: Why Tom recommended NOT to use a gateway for FW
Clients

http://www.ISAserver.org


I hear what your saying Jim but my reading strongly suggests that even
if you config a default GW the FW client s\ware will intercept all calls
(inc DNS) and redirect to ISA anyway.

Muqeem suggested that its best to give clients only one way out - again
I understand the logic Muqeem but again the FW client will intercept
anyway and infact configuring your clients with a default GW may be a
good idea since they could fallback to a secureNAT client if something
goes wrong with the FW s\ware.

Any other suggestions?
Nigel

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Harrison [mailto:jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2001 23:07
Subject: Re: Why Tom recommended NOT to use a gateway for FW Clients


A host with a default route to the ISA via its default gateway becomes a
secureNAT client.  If you don't want them to become secureNAT, don't
point
their default gateways to the ISA server.

------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
btirch@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')


Other related posts: