<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with vpn]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with vpn]]></description><link>https://foro.hardlimit.com/en/tags/vpn</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 10:11:45 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://foro.hardlimit.com/en/tags/vpn.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:51:55 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Is it possible to set up a point-to-point VPN without "opening" ports?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I'm going to update this topic with the "temporary" results obtained.</p> <p dir="auto">Indeed, thanks to the UDP HOLE PUNCHING technique, I was able to connect a VPN server and client without needing to open ports, but there's a BUT.</p> <p dir="auto">As you may know, lately ISPs have started using CG-NAT, which is a HUGE SCAM, because the UDP HOLE PUNCHING technique doesn't work under CG-NAT because it does a PORT RANDOMIZE and then the Source Port of the VPN server changes with each connection it makes, for example.</p> <p dir="auto">If I have a PC with the VPN server on port 1194 UDP and behind a CG-NAT, when sending packets to another computer, that 1194 probably leaves the CG-NAT through another port, which WE DON'T KNOW because it applies a PORT RANDOMIZE and maybe it ends up going out through 55123.</p> <p dir="auto">I've tried using a 3rd server where the "vpn server" sends some packets to be able to discover the SRC PORT behind the CG-NAT, but of course, that assignment waiting for a response is only for that 3rd server, to which the client tries to connect through that hole, the CG-NAT blocks the connection since it wasn't the original recipient, that's what HOLE PUNCHING is about.</p> <p dir="auto">Do you have any idea or know of any procedure to "jump" over this barrier? I know it's possible to ask the company to take us out of CG-NAT, but that's not a valid option because in the end, the one who will run the VPN server may even be behind a shared mobile connection, where there's no way to open/redirect ports either.</p> <p dir="auto">I know what I'm asking for is quite complex, but you never know where one might find the solution!</p> <p dir="auto">Best regards.</p> <p dir="auto">P.D: <a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/krampak">@<bdi>krampak</bdi></a> I mention you just in case <img src="https://foro.hardlimit.com/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f642.png?v=74ac04a7369" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--slightly_smiling_face" style="height:23px;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title=":)" alt="?" /></p>]]></description><link>https://foro.hardlimit.com/en/topic/62027/es-posible-establecer-una-vpn-punto-a-punto-sin-abrir-puertos</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://foro.hardlimit.com/en/topic/62027/es-posible-establecer-una-vpn-punto-a-punto-sin-abrir-puertos</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[rul3s]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:51:55 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>