Hi Kevin
That is what I thought of doing but I can't find any documentation on
how to do it. Can you please direct me to documentation that show's how
to NAT traffic going into a VPN?
TIA
Paolo
Horvath, Kevin M. wrote:
> In this case you could just try to nat the traffic through the
> vpn….haven’t tried it before but it should work.
>
> Kevin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* firewall-wizards-bounces@listserv.cybertrust.com
> [mailto:firewall-wizards-bounces@listserv.cybertrust.com] *On Behalf
> Of *David Swafford
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:16 PM
> *To:* firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
> *Subject:* Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> In your existing network, are you using any of the 172.28.x.x address
> space? If not, then one option that comes to my mind is that you could
> setup another Pix box who's sole purpose is to connect to the
> partner's tunnel (if the traffic is not too demanding maybe something
> small like a PIX 506?) I would then suggest that you somehow propagate
> a route that points to the PIX as being the next hop gateway for all
> 172.28.x.x addresses. This most likely involves the need to purchase
> another PIX or maybe just setting another interface on a cisco router
> running the IOS firewall would work?
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> David Swafford.
>
>> 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>
>>> [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
> <mailto:firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
>>> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> firewall-wizards mailing list
>> firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
> <mailto:firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
>> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
> <mailto:firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Founded in Faith - Preserved with Pride - Sustained by Spirit
> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> Upcoming Events:
> ALTER OPEN HOUSE
> November 16
> 7 - 9 p.m.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|