Re: How to route OPT traffic to IPSec tunnel?

Michael <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.security.firewalls.m0n0wall
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hello Hilton,

On Sun., Apr 11, 2010, Hilton TRAVIS wrote:
>On Fri., Apr 2, 2010, Michael wrote:
>>On Thurs., Apr 01, 2010, Chris Buechler wrote:
>>>On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Michael wrote:
>>>> But how to do that without adding another tunnel? You see from
>>>> the LAN and OPT subnet numbers that they are not summarizable as
>>>> mentioned in the FAQ 15.26 (How can I route multiple subnets over
>>>> a site to site IPSec VPN.) And I don't want to set up new tunnels.
>>>>
>>>There is no other option. It must match a SPD entry to go across
>>>IPsec, the routing table cannot send traffic over IPsec.
>>>
>> Okay, thanks for pointing it out. I guess I'll have to double my
>> IPSec tunnel configurations then, and give each OPT interface its
>> own tunnel to all of the other hosts (not very scalable.)
>>
>If you want scalable, configure the networks as subnets of one
>supernet, and away you go.
>
There are two networks and one is private (RFC1918) while the other
is public. To do what you suggest, I would need to stop fulfilling
this requirement right?

>You simply cannot configure a network as you have and want the
>functionality you need. You *CAN* make it scalable if you
>configure your network to be able to be scalable.
>
I do see your point, and you've worded it well. The requirement
of serving private and public subnets seems to conflict with the
requirement of routing hosts on both subnet types over a single
IPSec VPN tunnel.

Because the requirement of having both a private and public subnet
is more important than scalability, then I'm still considering just
adding more tunnels.

Regards,
Michael
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.