From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Aug 7 19:14:39 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A18372049 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BNZmb5T5yz3Ywv for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id BA09A37212D; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D293724A3 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BNZmb4XbBz3YVb for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EE5D1CA54 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 077JEdm0035722 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 077JEduv035721 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:14:39 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248474] NAT broken on IPsec/VTI [if_ipsec] Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: Unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: kokosmaps@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:14:39 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248474 Ziomalski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|Not A Bug |FIXED --- Comment #23 from Ziomalski --- (In reply to Michael Muenz from comment #22) Thanks Michael for your comments/testing.=20 Can you expand a bit on mixing route/policy based connections? I actually require one of each for my setup. My production is running on EdgeMax and t= his VTI/NAT issue was my last road-block to switching to pf/opn-sense, or so I thought. [VTI] LAN(192.168../16) -> filtered dest. subnets -> VTI with NAT(10.../32) [Policy] LAN(192.168../16) -> Remote net(60.../29) -> Tunnel with NAT(193.../32) Local-193.../32 Remote-60.../29 Both of these VPNs are only used one way. The far end does not connect to o= ur resources. You have me worried with your statement and so any advice would be great. A= re you a dev for one of the sense? Should I move this to a forum? I'm a bit under-experienced compared to you guys(especially with the backend stuff) so I really appreciate the help. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=