Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 02:33:44 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248474] if_ipsec: NAT broken on IPsec/VTI Message-ID: <bug-248474-7501-FMrOcmIoVQ@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 jeremy.mordkoff@riftio.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jeremy.mordkoff@riftio.com --- Comment #35 from jeremy.mordkoff@riftio.com --- (In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #17) I have a VTI routed tunnel already to another PF Sense. LAN to LAN, no NAT, wide open firewall rules. Bi directional traffic. Works fine.=20 I was trying to create a second VTI tunnel to a different server, but this = one needed SNAT. It is outbound only. The new tunnel was dropping all replies. I could see them arrive on the ipsec* interface but they never exited the rou= ter on the LAN interface.=20 These sysctl changes allowed the new tunnel to work, but they half-break the existing LAN to LAN tunnel. Hosts on the "CORE" side where I made these sys= ctl changes can still reach systems in the remote LAN, but the remote LAN cannot access the core LAN. Again, they arrive on ipsec* but they never exit the L= AN port.=20 (a) Is there a way to have he best of both worlds? I suspect not.=20 (b) Is there a way to configure the old LAN to LAN tunnel such that inbound traffic will flow again? --=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-FMrOcmIoVQ>