Sophos Firewall

Discussions UTM RED TO XG TUNNEL

Sophos Firewall requires membership for participation - click to join

Thread Info

State Verified Answer
Locked Locked
Replies 5 replies
Subscribers 27 subscribers
Views 5975 views
Users 0 members are here

Options

Suggested

This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UTM RED TO XG TUNNEL

Arvin Carlos over 7 years ago

Hello,

Is the UTM to XG tunnel using RED tunnel is now officially supported?...can someone send me some support/help links please...

This thread was automatically locked due to age.

Parents

0 LuCar Toni over 7 years ago

Hi,

it is supported. What product causes your problem?

Basically you have to build up the Server - Client config with RED and build up the tunnel.

Works fine on my appliances.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Arvin Carlos over 7 years ago in reply to LuCar Toni

I'm preparing and planning the deployment of SG105 to XF210 RED tunnel as of now...I will post the update soon.... any suggestion...which is better and easy to manage?... SG TO XG using RED Tunnel or SG TO XG IPSEC Tunnel using IKE1?....
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
+1 LuCar Toni over 7 years ago in reply to Arvin Carlos

Both works fine.

There are limitations in RED VPN XG with policy based routing, but nevertheless everything else should work.

Which protocol you should use depends on the performance, you want to archive.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

+1 LuCar Toni over 7 years ago in reply to Arvin Carlos

Both works fine.

There are limitations in RED VPN XG with policy based routing, but nevertheless everything else should work.

Which protocol you should use depends on the performance, you want to archive.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

0 Arvin Carlos over 7 years ago in reply to LuCar Toni

Thank you...I'm positive to go for IPSEC, since it is fully documented on the knowledgebase.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Arvin Carlos over 7 years ago in reply to LuCar Toni

Hi,

I am trying the IPSEC and this error logged on the UTM, any suggestion?

7:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: received Vendor ID payload [XAUTH]

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection]

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: ignoring Vendor ID payload [Cisco-Unity]

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947]

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: enabling possible NAT-traversal with method 3

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: NAT-Traversal: Result using RFC 3947: i am NATed

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: next payload type of ISAKMP Hash Payload has an unknown value: 116

2018:07:02-08:36:50 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: malformed payload in packet

2018:07:02-08:37:00 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: next payload type of ISAKMP Hash Payload has an unknown value: 74

2018:07:02-08:37:00 ryad-utm pluto[27818]: "S_SG_TO_XG" #1: malformed payload in packet
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel