RE: suggestions, connecting 2 inconvenient hosts

["Bort, Paul" <pbort,AT,tmwsystems,DOT,com>]

Ah, I misunderstood. Perhaps 1 could generate new config files for the 2<->3
connection (since it has all of the information) and SCP (keep the keys
secure) them to the respective machines? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Kleinpaste [mailto:karl,AT,charcoal,DOT,com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 1:06 PM
> To: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
> Subject: Re: suggestions, connecting 2 inconvenient hosts
> 
> 
> "Bort, Paul" <pbort,AT,tmwsystems,DOT,com> writes:
> > If you can add a route to 3 for all of the ISP's IP pool to 
> route via 1, you
> > should be able to add a route to 1 whenever 2 connects to 
> handle that
> > traffic. 
> 
> I am currently connecting between 2 & 3 by using their CIPE interfaces
> going through 1.  Most of the point of CIPE-connecting 2 & 3 directly
> is to avoid having network traffic necessarily go through 1.
> 
> --
> Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
> Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
> Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
> CIPE info and list archive: 
> <URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>
>