Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248474] NAT broken on IPsec/VTI [if_ipsec] Message-ID: <bug-248474-7501-Mp6jrRMZAq@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-248474-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-248474-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248474 Ziomalski <kokosmaps@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|Not A Bug |FIXED --- Comment #23 from Ziomalski <kokosmaps@gmail.com> --- (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.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-248474-7501-Mp6jrRMZAq>