From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Sep 29 19:01:48 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 E32EF42DA4D for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 +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 4C17zJ5ln2z46Fp for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C582642D4FE; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 +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 C54EB42D63B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 +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 4C17zJ4wwCz46YS for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 +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 8CAF3132F3 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 +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 08TJ1mFx007001 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 08TJ1mDv007000 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:48 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] if_ipsec: NAT broken on IPsec/VTI Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:47 +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 Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jimp@netgate.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: Not A Bug X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc 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: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:49 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248474 jimp@netgate.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jimp@netgate.com --- Comment #25 from jimp@netgate.com --- The suggested corrections in this issue only solve the problem for a small number of cases. Sacrificing filtering on enc in favor of if_ipsec isn't vi= able if someone needs both policy-based and route-based IPsec tunnels to differe= nt peers at the same time. The number of instances with a mix of both is much larger than instances which are purely using if_ipsec. At least with filtering on enc the firewall can filter traffic for both, ju= st no NAT or per-interface rules. If you disable filtering on enc, if_ipsec ru= les would work but traffic would flow freely and unfiltered on enc for policy-b= ased tunnels, which is a security risk. The ideal solution would allow both to coexist peacefully rather than being forced to choose. For example, policy-based traffic would filter on enc, wh= ile route-based traffic would not be processed by pfil on enc, but would filter= on each individual if_ipsec interface instead. Should this issue be reopened, or should there be a new issue framing this = as a feature request instead of a bug? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=