Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

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

Route to additional subnet behind remote VPN gateway

HI all,

 

I hope, someone can point me to the right direction.

I've setup a simple site2site VPN connection between Sophos UTM 9 and a Juniper SSG device. So far, no problem.

The Sophos UTM is behind a router doing NAT. Here are some example network definitions.

Sophos UTM:

IP on "external" interface: 192.168.30.2/24 (def. gw: 192.168.30.1)

IP on "internal" interface: 192.168.1.1/24

Remote device networks:

10.1.1.1/30 (transfer network. see below)

And these networks:

10.0.0.1/24

10.0.2.1/24

10.0.3.1/24

...

10.0.7.1/24

 

So all could be written as 10.0.0.0/21.

I can access all services so far. For example hosts in 10.0.2.x, 10.0.0.x. So far, no problem. The problem is, that one subnet (10.0.1.0/24, which is within the /21 range) is only accessible via another router. So, the remote Juniper device uses a "transfer" network to reach 10.0.1.0/24 (the transfer network is: 10.1.1.0/30, 10.1.1.1 is the juniper, 10.1.1.2 the other router we need to get to 10.0.1.0/24

 

So. Normally, I would create a route on the UTM like

ip route add 10.0.1.0/24 via 10.0.0.1. So packets coming from 192.168.1.x should go like this

For example 192.168.1.45 -> 192.168.1.1 (int) -> 192.168.30.2 (ext) -> VPN tunnel to 10.0.0.1 which should then pass via local  10.1.1.1 to 10.1.1.2 further to 10.0.1.0/24.

When I - manually - create this route, it is not passed through the VPN tunnel. The result is, that I get an "destination unreacheable" with the answer from the "external" IP of the UTM (so 192.168.30.2).

So what do I need to do to get packets with destination 10.0.1.0/24 to route via 10.0.0.1 (which is accessible via IPsec tunnel)?

I hope, everybody understood, what I want ;-)

Thank you very much.

Robert

 

 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents Reply Children
  • The FW rule does matter but isn't the main thing at the moment. The ipsec vpn needs to know the interesting traffic. So the final subnet has to be allowed to route via the vpn tunnel.

    You will need to have that subnet specified in the local subnets of the vpn tunnel. That way the router knows that traffic destined for x goes via the tunnel. You will then need to create a FW rule (unless you are using auto rules)

    Once traffic is allowed to traverse the ipsec tunnel, the UTM needs to know where to send it so you will need a static route within the UTM to forward it on.
    So the main thing to check is:

    1. Can the UTM route to the final subnet?
    2. Can the desired traffic traverse the ipsec tunnel?

    We have the same thing. Traffic destined for X hits our UTM via an ipsec site to site and is then sent down a 100mb link directly to site X whereas traffic destined for Y hits our Lan

  • Hmm..It is solved right now. I think, there was still some other static route here, that was causing this error.

    All is good now. Thanks.

    Robert