Couldn't you setup a policy NAT based on their address block? I know we
did this exact scenario in the SNPA class I just forget exactly what we
did and I'm still pretty new. If I can dig up my class material I may be
able to find the solution.
Paolo Supino wrote:
> Hi Kevin
>
> The IP address space assigned to me is not part of their public IP
> address space. I apologize, I explained myself wrong.
> Hopefully the following information will be clearer: The network behind
> my PIX is 192.168.99.x (the pix has a public IP address). Our partner
> uses IP addresses on network 172.28.x.x/16. They want me to use on my
> network IP addresses on subnet 172.28.150.32/28.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> TIA
> Paolo
>
>
>
> Horvath, Kevin M. wrote:
>
>
>> When you say carved out of their IP network, I assume you are talking about
>> the public assigned IP space, as the private ip space is anyones. If this
>> is correct then whoever wrote their policy needs to go to some basic routing
>> training as that just doesn't make any sense. You should be able to nat
>> traffic across a vpn tunnel, although I have never tried it, since nat is
>> done before packets are encrypted. Your problem will be that you have to
>> assign the outside ip block from the partner to your global statement which
>> will probably give you issues, as it breaks routing concepts (meaning those
>> aren't assigned/routed to you so they wont go anywhere, but since they are
>> going over an ipsec tunnel its plausible). Even if you get it working from
>> your side it will be interesting to see how they handle their incoming
>> public ip space from an ipsec tunnel since its routed to their outside
>> interface already. The more and more I think about this the more I realize
>> it should not even be tried. Its just a bad idea altogether. I just hope
>> you mean private ip not the partners public ip space when you say " carved
>> out of their overall IP network range"?
>>
>> Kevin M. Horvath
>> CISSP, CCSP, GCIH, INFOSEC, CQS-FW, CQS-VPN, CQS-IDS, CCNA
>> SAIC - IT Security Division
>> 703.868.1503
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firewall-wizards-bounces@listserv.cybertrust.com
>> [mailto:firewall-wizards-bounces@listserv.cybertrust.com] On Behalf Of Paolo
>> Supino
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:23 PM
>> To: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List
>> Subject: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have a network that is protected by a PIX 515e running 6.3(1). I was
>> asked to setup a IPSEC VPN with a partner. The partner's security policy
>> mandates that a remote encryption domain must use IP addresses on a
>> subnet carved out of their overall IP network range. The network behind
>> my PIX uses IP addresses on a subnet that is outside of their IP
>> network. Adding a second IP to my network isn't supported by the PIX OS.
>> To bypass this limitation I thought of NATing packets going into the VPN
>> tunnel. I've been looking for documentation for such a scenario, but
>> can't find anything. Can packets going into a VPN tunnel be NATed?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> TIA
>> Paolo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> firewall-wizards mailing list
>> firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
>> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>
>
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
|