Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:43:09 +0100
From:      tariq_rashid@lineone.net
To:        Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
Cc:        freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: start topology "hub" ipsec vpn / routing?
Message-ID:  <E15pX81-000OQO-00@mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

 thanks for your email - 

 do you  mean that the "hub" is a freebsd box? or is this the net4501?

 can you give me an indication of the isakmpd configuration on the "hub" or "client" -

 the problem i have is that it appears that routing is decided by the ipsec policy as defined in the isakmpd.conf (Local-ID, Remote-ID, network=, netmask=) and as such it appears that the configuration files MUST reflect the possible paths from end-to-end (and not just to the hub as required). 

am i wrong?

tariq


----------
>From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
>To: tariq_rashid@lineone.net
>Subject: Re: start topology "hub" ipsec vpn / routing?
>Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 08:15:07 -0500
>
>I have something almost identical running right now (using the NET4501's on www.soekris.com).  It works great, and I
>have built my own "VPN distro" with FreeBSD, to automate almost anything, and make it simple to admin (I have about 12
>running now, with 20-30 more creeping in as fast as I can build 'em).
>
>Eric
>
>
>tariq_rashid@lineone.net wrote:
>>
>> Good afternoon all!
>>
>> Is the following theoretically possible?
>>
>> Star topology VPN:
>>
>>       subnet--GW-----   ------GW--subnet
>>                     |   |
>>                     |   |
>>                     |   |
>>
>>                      VPN
>>  subnet--GW-----    "hub"  ------GW--subnet
>>
>>                     |   |
>>                     |   |
>>                     |   |
>>       subnet--GW-----   ------GW--subnet
>>
>> that is, each remote site ipsec gateway (freebsd 4.4R running isakmpd, not racoon due to dynamic
>> IP allocation) only has a tunnel to the central hub.
>>
>> the esential point is that once the traffic from a protected subnet emerges at the VPN "hub" the routing
>> tables of this hub then determine wthe next ipsec gateway hop and the packets are then re-encrypted and sent
>> throug the next tunnel.
>>
>> this way, only the central vpn hub needs to have its routing tables maintained. (i realise that if teh hub
>> goes down the whol evpn goes down!)
>>
>> the usual method requires each vpn gatway to be configured with knowledge of every other gateway and subnet.
>> thus not very scaleable.
>>
>> am i right or sorely mistaken?...
>>
>> any ideas or experiences would be appreciated!
>>
>> tariq
>>
>> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>> with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Anderson	 anderson@centtech.com    Centaur Technology
># rm -rf  /bin/laden
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E15pX81-000OQO-00>