<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">The use of NAT does not automatically rule out IPSec, but the use of <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pfSense does. pfSense doesn't support NAT-T (NAT Transversal, which is <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">basically just encapsulating the IPSec packet in a UDP packet), unless <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that's changed recently.<br></blockquote><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This would seem to indicate that pfSense supports NAT-T as of 1.3<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=211">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=211</a><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Hrm, I need to take another look at pfSense then. The lack of NAT-T was the one thing that made me dismiss it the last time I looked at it.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the heads up!</div><div><br></div></body></html>