Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:01:47 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248474] if_ipsec: NAT broken on IPsec/VTI Message-ID: <bug-248474-7501-30lhnxYEt0@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 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.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-248474-7501-30lhnxYEt0>