Comments on: An IPSec tunnel mode connection is not implemented as a routable interface on a Windows based server http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/ Stefaan Pouseele, an ISA Server MVP, discusses issues brought up within various ISA articles and Microsoft publications. Updates to the ISA Firewall, protocol support, discussions on the different ISA clients, ISA features, how to clean up network traffic and links to new ISA server literature are all be included within the blog. Get help on troubleshooting the ISA network firewall and learn how to create good security policies. Coverage on ISA Server 2006 also appears. Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:01:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU by: GCITSTAFF http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-10984 Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:27:40 +0000 http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-10984 Stefaan Thanks for the response, I think I may have found a solution that will work. On each pix at the remote offices, add the other remote network id's that you want to be protected and routed by the tunnel. Thanks again Stefaan
Thanks for the response, I think I may have found a solution that will work. On each pix at the remote offices, add the other remote network id’s that you want to be protected and routed by the tunnel.
Thanks
again

]]> by: Stefaan Pouseele http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-10927 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:42:45 +0000 http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-10927 Hi GCITSTAFF, not that I'm aware of. It only plays a role in the process of choosing the next hop when the remote VPN endpoint doesn't follow the default gateway routing path. HTH, Stefaan Hi GCITSTAFF,

not that I’m aware of. It only plays a role in the process of choosing the next hop when the remote VPN endpoint doesn’t follow the default gateway routing path.

HTH,
Stefaan

]]> by: GCITSTAFF http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-10919 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:02:43 +0000 http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-10919 We have a hub and spoke network with multiple branch offices. All branch offices have pix 501's. They all are vpn into isa 2006 at hub office. Does this mean we cannot route between branch offices? We have a hub and spoke network with multiple branch offices. All branch offices have pix 501’s. They all are vpn into isa 2006 at hub office. Does this mean we cannot route between branch offices?

]]> by: Tom Shinder http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-211 Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:29:26 +0000 http://blogs.isaserver.org/pouseele/2006/09/22/an-ipsec-tunnel-mode-connection-is-not-implemented-as-a-routable-interface-on-a-windows-based-server/#comment-211 Hi Stefaan, Excellent post! Thanks for the write up! Tom Hi Stefaan,

Excellent post! Thanks for the write up!
Tom

]]>