Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
- From: Paolo Supino <paolo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:57:16 -0500
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:firewall-wizards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf
Of *David Swafford
*Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:16 PM
*To:* firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*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 Kevintalking about
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
thisthe public assigned IP space, as the private ip space is anyones. If
routingis correct then whoever wrote their policy needs to go to some basic
nat istraining 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
statement whichdone before packets are encrypted. Your problem will be that you have to
assign the outside ip block from the partner to your global
(meaning thosewill probably give you issues, as it breaks routing concepts
they arearen't assigned/routed to you so they wont go anywhere, but since
working fromgoing over an ipsec tunnel its plausible). Even if you get it
realizeyour 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
carvedit 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 "
<mailto:firewall-wizards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Of Paolo[mailto:firewall-wizards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
policySupino
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
OS.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
VPNTo bypass this limitation I thought of NATing packets going into the
<mailto:firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- References:
- Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
- From: Horvath, Kevin M.
- Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
- Prev by Date: [fw-wiz] PC Firewall Evaluations
- Next by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
- Previous by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] bypassing PIX limitation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|