Routing single local host internet traffic through remote IPSec tunnel gateway

possible a policy-(default) route would work.

i would try:  policy routes / from:special hosts / to:any(or better needed destinations) / services: any (or known needed) -> Gateway: IPS-Router

Hi dirkkotte, thank for your reply. I read in some other posts that you can't forward packets in VPN tunnels via Policy routing...

anyway I tried your suggestion because it was a worth and easy try but unfortunately it's seems that it doesn't works...

Hi Karl-Heinz,

thank you so much for your real commitment to the post :-)

More or less our environment is likely your virtual test environment, except we have hardware appliances and two different internet connections.

here is our tunnel 

and I can ping both gateway from each site as well.

I have a test host WS10 that can browse internet:

So I create Policy route:

When active internet become unreachable:

Even with SNAT rule on remote site:

Tried with automatic firewall rules and by check "Rule applies to IPSec Packets" box

same result ... Internet Unreachable

Seeing this I have to agree with Bob that for some reason policy routes do not apply to IPsec tunnel...

Hi Marcello,

Some questions just to be sure (since we now have both a working policy route through IPSEC and a non-working policy route through IPSEC):

Is the RemoteIPSEC gateway the LAN/Internal adapter on your branch UTM? It's the only difference I can think of for now between your environment and the VM test environment

Can the WS10 host ping IP adresses in de branch LAN if the policy route is not active? In my test environment I accepted the Remote LAN for each connection and offered the local LAN.

Regards,

Karl-Heinz

Hi Karl-Heinz,

yes to both questions, UTM are gateways of the sites and I can ping host in the other site from any of the hosts, when the route policy is active the host become unresponsive..

Regards

MR

Keep in mind the security associations here, you are not doing host -> ANY in the ipsec tunnel but specific networks / hosts to eachother. 

IPSEC would drop all traffic that doesn't match the security association. 

You can get around this for inbound traffic by doing a Full NAT on the remote gateway that changes the source to go through the tunnel and hit the site on the other side. 

Something like:

For traffic from ANY host

Using service: whatever service

Going to: External of UTMgateway2

Change destination to:  Webserver IP across the tunnel

Change source to: Interface IP of this side of the tunnel

Check rule applies to IPSEC packets. 

You guys might both be interested in considering Sophos UTM multiple S2S IPsec VPN mit Failover – Tutorial (DE).  All of the screens are in English, Marcello, so even if you don't read German, you should find the article accessible.

Cheers - Bob

Just a quick update on how I work arounded finally the question. I created a RED tunnel and bridged a new interface in HQ UTM to it. Then I connected a little router WIFI to the bridged interface. When people from branch office come to HQ with their laptops, they connect to the bridged WiFi so they can continue to access internet presenting Branch Office WAN IP,  mantaining their accesses on cloud resources.

A big thank to all, every ideas and suggestions came from this community 

Just a follow up on this as I am setting up a similar setup right now - Do i need to actually have two separate tunnels/gateways/connections created? I'm not understanding how this segregates the traffic whether they are listed as separate networks within the tunnel or separate VPN connections/tunnels? 

Not sure what you mean by "a similar setup," Aaron.

Cheers - Bob

Similar setup in the sense that I have a branch office and a HQ and trying to route all the internet bound traffic for a subnet to another site for an exit point.

I tried with the policy based route which breaks the connection and doesn’t work / nothing pings or routes.

If I try adding 0.0.0.0 to the IPSec tunnel - the tunnel doesn’t establish.

My question I poorly worded last night was - do I need two entirely independent tunnel connections or just the subnets to be listed separately in the local/remote networks on either side respectively ?

Show us pictures of the Edits of the IPsec Connection and Remote Gateway for both sides and tell us if/where Web Filtering is being done - the exit point site or not or both.

Cheers - Bob

Show us pictures of the Edits of the IPsec Connection and Remote Gateway for both sides and tell us if/where Web Filtering is being done - the exit point site or not or both.

Cheers - Bob

Well, now I can get the tunnel to establish (I believe it was a double-NAT issue on the "Branch" side). My goal here is get only one specific subnet to route its internet traffic via a second ipsec tunnel.

Unfortunately, when I get the tunnel to establish, all the branch side sophos traffic (as in, traffic generated on the Sophos itself) seems to try and go through the tunnel or just quits working altogether. Traceroute no longer works, cannot ping externally, etc. A review of the routes under Support>Advanced shows that the Sophos is trying to default all traffic via the new tunnel.

This isn't the intended routing so first and foremost I need to find a solution to this. 

The branch Sophos has 1 NAT rule that routes internet bound traffic from a source of "any" out on a WAN public IP of the branch Sophos. 

Pictures please!

Cheers - Bob

Branch Screenshots:

HQ FW:

There is a second tunnel (which is the primary production tunnel at the moment) that is set up the same except it has the production subnets routed between the two sites. 

In BO_GUEST_FIREWALL, do you have a Masquerading rule like 'BO_Guest -> External'?

Cheers - Bob

Heres the NAT rules. I don't have any masq rules active. I have a masq rule that I've activated when the secondary tunnel (the tunnel listed above) is up from GUEST_NETWORK>INTERNAL ... which I guess in hindsight isn't correct, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't be covered in the below NAT rule...