Hi to all,
I have one UTM 9 at HQ site and one UTM 9 at branch site with IPSec Active tunnel between them.
I would like, only for some specific hosts in HQ site, to present themselves on Internet using Branch site WAN IP address instead of HQ wan IP.
It is possible with some SNAT / routing rule? What would be the best way to address it?
thank you all
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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...