Search Results

Search found 114 results on 5 pages for 'sonicwall'.

Page 3/5 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

• Sonicwall Global VPN Client fails to connect, despite successful connections from other computers from behind the same router

  - by JesperE

  I've recently been unable to connect to our Sonicwall VPN at work. The Sonicwall client is stuck on "connecting", and the log says "The peer is not responding to phase1 ISAKMP requests". The weird thing is that this is not an issue with my own PC, only my work laptop (Lenovo W530 running Windows 7 64-bit), and this has only appeared recently. This ought to rule out any problems with my ISP blocking VPN, or issues with the router itself. My company's IT department says that they cannot see anything in their logs when I'm trying to connect. My conclusion is that something is wrong on the laptop itself. Disabling the firewall does not help. Can the VPN connection be blocked in other ways? What should I be looking for? EDIT: This problem has "magically" disappeared, without any changes done in my network. I can only assume that this was caused by some network glitch with my ISP.

  Read the article

• How to temporarily disable SonicWall from connecting to the internet?

  - by Jerry Dodge

  I have been doing some extensive seeking in our SonicWall TZ-215 for the source(s) of unnecessary internet traffic, as we have issues with excessive traffic. As part of my research, I need to watch the Connections Monitor, which lists me all the current connections. This list becomes quite long, with 40+ devices on the network, it's tough to pinpoint the main causes. What I would like to do is disable the SonicWall its self from letting its internal components from connecting to anything. Is there any type of trick I can do in the Firewall which can prevent the router system from connecting to anything, to clean up the connections monitor and allow only suspicious traffic?

  Read the article

• VPN Sonicwall 190 with MAC OS 10.6.1?

  - by matthewb

  Has anyone been able to vpn to a sonicwall 190, using a free or cheap VPN client? I've tried VPN Tracker 6 and it works but don't want to spend $129+

  Read the article

• Portable version of Sonicwall Global VPN Client? Install without administrator credentials?

  - by Sam Salisbury

  Does anyone know of a portable version of the Sonicwall Global VPN Client compatible with Windows 7 64 bit? I basically need to connect to my workplace during heavy snow here in Liverpool, and the only logon I have available on this computer is a non-administrator account (which won't let me install the program)... And I can't get hold of the administrator! If anyone knows of any alternative program/any hacks or other suggestions would be very welcome! Note I've tried extracting the MSI using 7-zip, which presented me with an MSI installer and "RunMSI.exe". The extracted MSI allowed me to get part way through the installation, and then asked for admin password again.

  Read the article

• Multiple WAN interfaces in same subnet on Sonicwall NSA220?

  - by Ttamsen

  (eta salutation, which keeps getting eaten.) Hi, all. I see a bunch of related questions, so I'm hesitant to ask, but: I have a situation where I have a Sonicwall NSA220 serving as firewall/router for two internal subnets to two external WAN connections. In some locations this is two separate ISPs. In others, it's the same ISP but with multiple circuits. The problem is that one ISP has been unable to provide unique subnets for each WAN interface. Is there any possibility that I might be able to bond the two WAN interfaces into a single virtual interface, and then use source-routing to get internal subnets communicating out the appropriate physical interface? Or even just use traffic-shaping to give each internal network appropriate shared bandwidth? I haven't found anything in the docs, but it seemed like it might be worth asking. Thanks for any help! -Steve.

  Read the article

• how can I stop my sonicwall TZ-210 (SonicOS Enhanced 5.5.1.0-5o) from responding to arp queries on the wan subnet?

  - by IsaacB

  My sonicwall TZ-210 is answering arp queries on the wan subnet (which my isp doesn't like), basically mapping all the wan ips to its own mac address, causing network havoc since it is not set to route those back to the main isp gateway. How the heck can I turn this behavior off? I have already entered in all wan subnet ips in the static arp cache and left them 'unpublished' which I presumed would mean that it did not bother answering arp queries for them. Apparently it did not do the trick. Arp queries are still being answered unfortunately. What can I do? Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• How can I setup a Firewall without NAT?

  - by SRobertJames

  We have 16 IP addresses from our ISP, and are setting up a SonicWall Firewall. I'd like to have the SonicWall do NAT for the LAN, but act as a firewall only (no NAT) for the servers which are using some of the 16 addresses. How do I set this up? If I set the WAN's subnet to include the 16 IPs, the SonicWall won't route the traffic to the LAN interface. Should I set the WAN subnet to only include the ones we are dedicating for NAT, and then keep the others on the LAN? Related point: How can I set multiple IP addresses for a SonicWall LAN interface?

  Read the article

• L2TP server - site-to-site vpn connection

  - by Pyro

  I am not sure this is the right place for this question but here goes. We want to connect users using an L2TP VPN connection to a users at the other end of a SonicWall site-to-site VPN. Currently we have a SonicWall firewall/router contraption in the home-office that is connected to a far-office over a VPN. Communications with machines in the home-office and far-office is fine. We also have an L2TP server running on the SonicWall that outside users can connect to. This gives them access to machines in the home-office. Communication between outside users and the home-office is fine. However outside users connected to the home-office via the L2TP server can't communicate with machines in the far-office. Will there need to be network bridging or routing needed? Or will this simply be a firewall setting to get this working? Thanks for any help or clues you provide! Rob

  Read the article

• VPN Client solution

  - by realtek

  I have several VPN's that I need to establish on a daily basis but from multiple workstations. What I would like to do it have either a server or vpn router that can perform this connection itself and that I can then route traffic through this device or server depending on the subnet I am trying to reach. The issue is that I only use VPN Clients to connect, so I am basically trying to achieve almost a site to site VPN but by using basically a VPN Client type connection from my network. The main VPN Client I use is the Sonicwall Global VPN Client where I initially use a Preshared Key and then it always prompts me for a username and password (not RSA key). My question is, is there any type of linux distro or even a hardware vpn router that can do this and connect to a Sonicwall device as if it were a client? I have tried pfSense which is very good but it fails to connect, probably due to a mismatch of settings. I have tried many others. Even dd-wrt on my router but it does not support whatever protocol Sonicwall uses. (I thought L2TP/IPSec) but it appears it may not be that. Any advice would be great! The other other thing I have thought of that I have not tried yet is Windows Server Routing and Remote Access but I have a feeling that won't work either. Thanks

  Read the article

• Exchange 2007 Email Error 451 4.7.0 Timeout waiting for client input

  - by HK1

  Our SBS 2008 server with Exchange 2007 started rejecting some (most) emails starting about 3 or 4 days ago. The return failure message looks something like this: The error that the other server returned was: 451 451 4.7.0 Timeout waiting for client input (state 18) I've rebooted our Sonicwall TZ-210 router and that doesn't make any difference. I think this problem has something to do with MTU (packet size) but I don't understand why the problem just started now. We haven't made any changes to our network infrastructure for weeks. If I ping our SonicWall (DSL connection, bridge mode) forcing unfragmented packets, I start getting packet dropouts at packet size 1320 or so. Maybe this is completely normal, I'm not sure. I haven't tried rebooting the DSL modem yet because I'm not on site. That's one of the next things I'll try.

  Read the article

• Reverse DNS does not match SMTP Banner

  - by Bastien974

  Hi all, I had this Warning with mxtoolbox. I know that it's not necessarily a big problem, but since we are having lots of issue with email delivery, I want to check everything. I have a Exchange server 07 + Sonicwall. My FQDN is office.mydomain.ca for send/receive connectors. When I try : telnet office.mydomain.ca 25 -- 220 MYSERVER.mydomain.local Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Fri, 7 May 2010 10:34:36 -0400 I can change my SMTP Banner in the Sonicwall, but I don't know what to write, if there is a specific syntax or what can be the consequence if it doesn't work. Thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• Cannot Enter Credentials Over UAC Prompts During Remote Assistance

  - by user100731

  We are using sonicwall firewall device through out our network and we use the sonicwall virtual assistance tool for remote desktop assistance. Since our systems are not in workgroup and are on domain we face problem when the UAC prompts appear. As a work around we edited the UAC policies, such as switching to secure desktop-disable, Allowing UI Acess applications to prompt for elevation without using secure desktop-Enable etc. The ultimate result was we are able to see the UAC prompt on the remote user system but not able to interact with it like we are not able to enter credentials to it even I can see the password being entered if it is done by the local user. However, we cannot interact with UAC prompt window remotely. Is there any solution for this?

  Read the article

• DHCP for Multiple Subnets

  - by TheD

  So this is the current setup - essentially I would like to get my DHCP server, serving DHCP requests for two seperate subnets. Netgear DG834G acting as a modem connected to a Sonicwall Pro 2040. X0 - LAN - 192.168.1.0/24 X1 - WAN - <WAN-IP> X2 - WLAN - 192.168.10.0/24 At the moment, I have a 2008R2 server with DHCP installed, with an IP address on the 192.168.1.0/24 range handling DHCP fine for this subnet. The Sonicwall is configured correctly - anything connected to the WLAN has Full Allow to anything in the LAN, and vice versa but it will not lease an IP from my Server. I've also added another IP address to the server, so the physical NIC now has two IP's: 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.10.2 with a DHCP scope configured for each. Still no luck! Any ideas? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Active RDP session over VPN getting disconnected

  - by Wandering Penguin

  I am having seemingly random disconnects of active RDP sessions (I am actively typing or otherwise interacting with the desktop) when connected over the VPN connection. The attempted to reconnect 1/20 pops up and proceeds all the way through 20 then drops. Once the session drops I can open a new session and connect again. This started happening about a week ago, The VPN connection is an IPSec VPN connection from a SonicWall NSA 2400. The NIC drivers are up to date. The VPN client is up to date. The firmware on the SonicWall is up to date (both regular and the early-release versions work the same). I have attempted to connect over three ISPs all with the same behavior. Two different workstations were used to test the VPN connection. The same behavior occurs when connecting to a domain workstation or server. If I am within the firewall I can connect to the same workstations and servers with the disconnect. The VPN connection has "enable fragmented packet handling" and "ignore DF (don't fragment) bit" set. Is there something I am missing in where I am looking for the problem?

  Read the article

• Routing between 2 different subnets on 2 different interfaces in SonicOS

  - by Chris1499

  I'm having a bit of a problem allowing traffic between two of my subnets. Here's the structure I've built. The X0 interface has our windows server on it and it handles DHCP/DNS, etc. X1 has the WAN connection. The Sonicwall is handling DHCP on X2. The X3 interface is connected to a different vlan on the 48 port switch. The Sonicwall is handling DHCP on this network as well. So here's what i want to do. The network on X2 is for our guest wireless; i don't want it to be able to access any of the other networks, just the internet, so i that all blocked in the firewall. No issues there. The X3 network is going to be for programmable controllers, and needs to be able to access the X0 network where our computers are. This is where my problem is. I'm not able to get between the 192.168.2.xxx and the 192.168.1.xxx on interfaces X0 and X3 respectively. I have these rules set up in the firewall. The Lan Primary Subnet is the 192.168.2.0 on X0. So if i'm not mistaken, this will allow traffic between the two through the firewall. Now this is where I'm a little confused. Do i need to use NAT to get the traffic from X0 to go to X3 (and vice versa), or a static route, or both? Currently i have both, though i doubt they're done correctly (also in screenshot). I've tried to ping between the two without luck. Any advice, or if you see what's wrong with my setup, is much appreciated. If you need some more information, let me know. Thanks all! EDIT: So i found that i don't neither either NAT or a static route, that the setting in the firewall is enough. I can now ping from the 192.168.1.xxx network, however i can't access the server on the 192.168.2.xxx network. When i try to access i get "An error occured while reconnecting to Z: to server Microsoft Windows Network: The local device name is already in use. This connection has not been restored. What am i missing?

  Read the article

• Create VPN between windows and sonic wall

  - by Chris Lively

  I'm trying to establish a VPN connection between our Windows 2008 R2 server and a client's SonicWall device. The problem is, I'm not entirely sure where to start. I thought I could just add it to RRAS but this doesn't appear to work (times out), I'm not entirely sure I did that right anyway. My server is hosted on an EC2 instance if that matters. My question then is how should I go about establishing this type of connection?

  Read the article

• SonicPoint AP Clients Not Able To Connect With DHCP

  - by Mike Keller

  This is my first time setting up anything like this so please be gentle. I'm a web developer who fell into setting up a few SonicWall NSA 4200's... I've tried doing as much research on this through Google and ServerFault but haven't been able to hunt down an answer as to what I'm doing wrong. We've got two virtual access points set up here, one that is intended for employees (tied to X2) and the other for guests (tied to X2:V1). We are not using the DHCP server on the NSA 4200, but one already on the network. When a client connects to the employee SSID they are able to obtain a IP from the network's DHCP server. However when attempting to connect to the guest SSID the client does a search for a DHCP server but can't find one. Any clues, resources, answers would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Bandwidth Control on our Internet Connection

  - by AlamedaDad

  Hi all, I have Covad dual/bonded T1 service in our office coming through a Cisco 1841 and then through a Sonicwall 3060Pro/Enhanced SW firewall. The problem I'm looking for some input on is how to limit the amount of bandwidth any single user/PC can user for downloading a file from the Internet. It's become an issue that when one person happens to download let's say an ~300MB file, normal internet access for the other employees slows to a crawl. I've seen through MRTG that in fact usage of the circuit jumps to the full 3mb for the duration of the download and then drops. Is it possible to control this? I'm not familiar with QOS or the like so I'm not sure. Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks...Michael

  Read the article

• Proxying/Tunneling IPSec traffic via netcat or SOCKS?

  - by MattC

  I have a client that is using a SonicWall router as their VPN concentrator. I downloaded the client software and set up the router as a peer. My issue is that my company uses a dual DMZ setup, meaning we have an interior firewall, then a bunch of DMZ servers, then an external firewall, then finally the telco router. In this setup, the interior firewall has no way to communicate with the exterior firewall since they are on two totally separate subnets. The communication occurs through the servers that straddle the networks. In this case, I need some way to forward the ISAKMP/IPSec traffic from my desktop out to the Internet. My usual trick of using netcat on the intermediate proxy server doesn't work here since it's not TCP/UDP traffic as far as I can tell. All of my previous experience with VPN's have been using SSL-based VPN's which are clearly very easily proxy-able. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

  Read the article

• Improving VPN performance - stronger encryption = more performance?

  - by Seth

  I have a site-to-site VPN set up with two SonicWall's (a TZ170 and a Pro1260). It was suggested to me that turning off encryption (so the VPN is tunneling only) would improve performance. (I'm not concerned with security, because the VPN is running over a trusted line.) Using FTP and HTTP transfers, I measured my baseline performance at about 130±10 kB/s. The Ipsec (Phase 2) Encryption was set to 3DES, so I set it to "none". However, the effect was opposite -- the performance dropped to 60±30 kB/s, and the transfers stall for about 25 seconds before any data comes down the line. I tried AES-128 and the throughput went UP to 160±5 kB/s. The rated speed of my line is 193 kB/s (it's a T1). Contrary to what I would think, stronger Ipsec encryption seems to improve throughput. Can anyone explain what might be going on here? Why would no encryption cause poor and highly variable performance, and cause transfers to stall? Why does AES-128 improve performance?

  Read the article

• ASA and cisco vs NSA sonic firewall

  - by Lbaker101

  Currently I’m trying to structure our network to fully support and be redundant with BGP/Multi homing. Our current company size is 40 employees but the major part of that is our Development department. We are a software company and continued connection to the internet is a requirement as 90% of work stops when the net goes down. The only thing hosted on site (that needs to remain up) is our exchange server. Right now i'm faced with 2 different directions and was wondering if I could get your opinions on this. We will have 2 ISPs that are both 20meg up/down and dedicated fiber (so 40megs combined). This is handed off as an Ethernet cable into our server room. ISP#1 first digital ISP#2 CenturyLink we currently have 2x ASA5505s but the 2nd one is not in use. It was there to be a failover and it just needs the security+ license to be matched with the primary device. But this depends on the network structure. I have been looking into the hardware that would be required to be fully redundant and I found that we will either of the following. 2x Cisco 2921+ series routers with failover licenses. They will go in front of the ASAs and either connects in a failover state or 1 ISP into each of the 2921 series routers and then 1 line into each of the ASAs (thus all 4 hardware components will be used actively). So 2x Cisco 2921+ series routers 2x Cisco ASA5505 firewalls The other route 2x SonicWalls NSA2400MX series. 1 primary and the secondary will be in a failover state. This will remove the ASAs from the network and be about 2k cheaper than the cisco route. This also brings down the points of failure because it’s just the 2x sonicwalls It will also allow us to scale all the way up to 200-400 users (depending on their configuration). This also makes so the Sonic walls. So the real question is with the added functionality ect of the sonicwall is there a point in paying so much more to stay the cisco route? Thanks!

  Read the article

• SonicOS Enhanced 5.8.1.2 L2TP VPN Authentication Failed

  - by Dean A. Vassallo

  I have a SonicWall TZ 215 running SonicOS Enhanced 5.8.1.2-6o. I have configured the L2TP VPN using the default crypto suite ESP: 3DES/HMAC SHA1 (IKE). Proposals are as such: IKE (Phase 1) Proposal DH Group: Group 2 Encryption: 3DES Authentication: SHA1 Life Time (seconds): 28800 Ipsec (Phase 2) Proposal Protocol: ESP Encryption: 3DES Authentication: SHA1 Enable Perfect Forward Secrecy DISABLED Life Time (seconds): 28800 When attempting to connect via my Mac OS X client I get an authentication error. It appears to pass the pre-authentication but fails to complete. I am at a complete loss. I reconfigured from scratch multiple times...used simple usernames and passwords to verify this wasn't a miskeyed password issue. I have Here are the logs (noted IP has been removed for privacy): 7/1/13 8:19:05.174 PM pppd[1268]: setup_security_context server port: 0x1503 7/1/13 8:19:05.190 PM pppd[1268]: publish_entry SCDSet() failed: Success! 7/1/13 8:19:05.191 PM pppd[1268]: publish_entry SCDSet() failed: Success! 7/1/13 8:19:05.191 PM pppd[1268]: pppd 2.4.2 (Apple version 727.1.1) started by dean, uid 501 7/1/13 8:19:05.192 PM pppd[1268]: L2TP connecting to server ‘0.0.0.0’ (0.0.0.0)... 7/1/13 8:19:05.193 PM pppd[1268]: IPSec connection started 7/1/13 8:19:05.208 PM racoon[1269]: accepted connection on vpn control socket. 7/1/13 8:19:05.209 PM racoon[1269]: Connecting. 7/1/13 8:19:05.209 PM racoon[1269]: IPSec Phase 1 started (Initiated by me). 7/1/13 8:19:05.209 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 1). 7/1/13 8:19:05.209 PM racoon[1269]: >>>>> phase change status = Phase 1 started by us 7/1/13 8:19:05.231 PM racoon[1269]: >>>>> phase change status = Phase 1 started by peer 7/1/13 8:19:05.231 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 2). 7/1/13 8:19:05.234 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 3). 7/1/13 8:19:05.293 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 4). 7/1/13 8:19:05.295 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 5). 7/1/13 8:19:05.315 PM racoon[1269]: IKEv1 Phase 1 AUTH: success. (Initiator, Main-Mode Message 6). 7/1/13 8:19:05.315 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 6). 7/1/13 8:19:05.315 PM racoon[1269]: IKEv1 Phase 1 Initiator: success. (Initiator, Main-Mode). 7/1/13 8:19:05.315 PM racoon[1269]: IPSec Phase 1 established (Initiated by me). 7/1/13 8:19:06.307 PM racoon[1269]: IPSec Phase 2 started (Initiated by me). 7/1/13 8:19:06.307 PM racoon[1269]: >>>>> phase change status = Phase 2 started 7/1/13 8:19:06.308 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 1). 7/1/13 8:19:06.332 PM racoon[1269]: attribute has been modified. 7/1/13 8:19:06.332 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 2). 7/1/13 8:19:06.332 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 3). 7/1/13 8:19:06.333 PM racoon[1269]: IKEv1 Phase 2 Initiator: success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode). 7/1/13 8:19:06.333 PM racoon[1269]: IPSec Phase 2 established (Initiated by me). 7/1/13 8:19:06.333 PM racoon[1269]: >>>>> phase change status = Phase 2 established 7/1/13 8:19:06.333 PM pppd[1268]: IPSec connection established 7/1/13 8:19:07.145 PM pppd[1268]: L2TP connection established. 7/1/13 8:19:07.000 PM kernel[0]: ppp0: is now delegating en0 (type 0x6, family 2, sub-family 3) 7/1/13 8:19:07.146 PM pppd[1268]: Connect: ppp0 <--> socket[34:18] 7/1/13 8:19:08.709 PM pppd[1268]: MS-CHAPv2 mutual authentication failed. 7/1/13 8:19:08.710 PM pppd[1268]: Connection terminated. 7/1/13 8:19:08.710 PM pppd[1268]: L2TP disconnecting... 7/1/13 8:19:08.711 PM pppd[1268]: L2TP disconnected 7/1/13 8:19:08.711 PM racoon[1269]: IPSec disconnecting from server 0.0.0.0 7/1/13 8:19:08.711 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). 7/1/13 8:19:08.712 PM racoon[1269]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (Delete IPSEC-SA). 7/1/13 8:19:08.712 PM racoon[1269]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). 7/1/13 8:19:08.712 PM racoon[1269]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (Delete ISAKMP-SA). 7/1/13 8:19:08.713 PM racoon[1269]: glob found no matches for path "/var/run/racoon/*.conf" 7/1/13 8:19:08.714 PM racoon[1269]: pfkey DELETE failed: No such file or directory

  Read the article

• Handshake violation when trying to access one website

  - by Miguel

  I have a TZ 190 Wireless Enhanced with SonicOS Enhanced 4.2.1.0-20e. Yesterday, people could access without any problems a bank website wich uses HTTPS. Today, it is imposible to access only that website, every other ones works without problems. When checking the log message filtering to my IP only, this is what appears and I suspect is the cause of this problem, because all other websites are working: Priority: Notice Category: Network Access Message: TCP handshake violation detected; TCP connection dropped Source: X.Y.Z.3, 51997, LAN (admin) Destination: 200.14.232.18, 443, WAN Notes: Handshake Timeout Where X.Y.Z.3 is my local IP. I've tried to change TCP Settings under Firewall option, and activated this options with no success: Enforce strict TCP compliance with RFC 793 and RFC 1122 and Enable TCP checksum enforcement I've also tried to find the MTU and at first I got: Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set But when I lower the value of ping -f -l to 1468 I got: Request timeout. Also I deactivate CFS in lan and wan zones. Nothing works. Can you please help me? Any Ideas?

  Read the article

• Why should I use Firewall Zones and not just Address Objects?

  - by SRobertJames

  I appreciate Firewall Address Objects and Address Groups - they simplify management by letting me give a name to a group of addresses. But I don't understand what Firewall Zones (LAN, WAN, DMZ, etc.) do for me over Address Groups. I know all firewalls have them, so there must be a good reason. But what do I gain by stating a rule applies to all traffic from LAN Zone to WAN Zone which comes from LAN Address Group to WAN Address Group? Why not just mention the Address Groups?

  Read the article

• VPN Authentication Credentials (Local/Remote Identifiers) For Remote Access VPN

  - by thatidiotguy

  So I am trying to set up a remote access VPN using the free ShrewSoft vpn client: https://www.shrew.net/software I want to use a PSK as the authentication mechanism combined with XAuth so that a connection requires a valid username/pass combo. Under the authentication tab this particular VPN Client however is asking for a Local Identity and a Remote Identity. The options for Local Identity Type are: Fully Qualified Domain Name User Fully Qualified Domain Name IP Address Key Identifier The options for Remote Identity are: Any Fully Qualified Domain Name User Fully Qualified Domain Name IP Address Key Identifier My current thinking is that I can use the Fully Qualifed Domain Name provided by the remote firewall for the Remote Identity, but I do not know what it wants for local identity. Just to stress: I am not trying to set up a site to site VPN. Can anybody shed any light on what I am missing here? A screenshot can be provided if that would be helpful. The current error I am getting during the connection is: IKE Responder: Proposed IKE ID mismatch

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >