Policy Nat and IPSec tunnel

Similar Questions

• Voice and IPSEC Tunnels

  In which case I use a DMVPN IPSEC technology for branch connectivity, used ISP know what kind of traffic I run because it is encrypted in the end.

  DMVPN package use is first encapsulated in GRE and then encrypted with IPSEC authentication information. Because the ultimate traffic is IPSEC requires ISP/provider leave the port UDP 500 and ESP open. Once the tunnel is created I can pass any type of traffic because it will use ESP.

  Given what I saw a few deployments where we put in place this kind of solution and telephone traffic did not and ip phones were unable to register. Most of the guys have pointed out that it could possibly be because ISP blocks the SCCP traffic, but my concern is that if we have a branch at Headquarters IPSEC tunnel how the ISP can detect this thing and drop it.

  Please provide feedback on this.

  The provider cannot see inside the tunnel. Only, he could assume that it could be the voice traffic:

  The voice parameters the value DSCP-in IP header when they send traffic. These values are copied to the outer IP header when the traffic is encrypted. With this function you can also do QoS on encrypted traffic.

  But I do not think that a provider might filter on this traffic.

  --
  Don't stop once you have upgraded your network! Improve the world by lending money to low-income workers:
  http://www.Kiva.org/invitedBy/karsteni

• Access-list group policy and IPSec tunnel.

  I have an IPSec Site to Site VPN tunnel that ends on the external interface of the firewall. My ftp server is located in a demilitarized zone. The DMZ has an access list applied to the interface. When I created the Group of the tunnel for the Site to Site, I create a group of tunnel with group policy and manage the policy with filters. The filter looks like an access list. Are the filter and the ACL interface work together? The one replace the other? How they work together.

  Once traffic ipsec, acl interface is not used until you have enabled "sysopt conn allowed-/ ipsec vpn. When you add a vpn-filter, it is what will filter the ipsec traffic.

• 1841 can route between tunnel GRE and IPSEC tunnel?

  Hello everyone!

  See the image below.

  Main office (10.0.1.0/24 LAN) and branch (10.0.2.0/24 LAN) are connected through the GRE tunnel.

  The third office (10.0.3.0/24) is attached to the second branch via IPSEC.

  Is there the way to establish the connection between the third and the main office through cisco 1841?

  Is it possible to perform routing, perhaps with NAT?

  In fact we need connection with a single server in the main office.

  Thank you

  Hello

  It is possible to build this configuration.

  the IPSEC connection between 10.0.3.x and 10.0.2.x should also encapsulate the traffic to main office.

  Steps to follow:

  Central office, to shift traffic to 10.0.3.x above the GRE tunnel.

  The second part, add the 10.0.3.x - 10.0.1.x selection of traffic to the ACL IPSEC with the third

  The third part, add the 10.0.3.x - 10.0.1.x selection of traffic to the ACL IPSEC with the second pane.

  Please rate if this helped.

  Kind regards

  Daniel

• NAT on IPSEC tunnel on cisco router

  Hello.

  I have a central router works as a Hup with two talks about routers, but rays routers has the same encryption domain network (the same local Network Segment), I need to do a nat on one of VPN tunnels to avoid conflicts in the concentrator, router. Can anyone help me?.

  Sent by Cisco Support technique iPad App

  NAT is performed before the encryption and decryption, so you should be able to configure your NAT as you please.

  Example:

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/products/ps5855/products_configuration_example09186a0080a0ece4.shtml

• IGP and GRE Tunnel

  GRE.png

  

  Please see the photo above two connected sites using FA 0/1 R1 and R2 and a GRE Tunnel is formed.

  Case 1:

  We have a point-to-point connection between two routers and the IP address assigned to FA 0/1 on R1 and R2 belong to the same subnet. We then configure a GRE Tunnel on these as indicated in the topology:

  • Using such as eigrp and ospf IGP we can peer routers R1 and R2 using the tunnel and the point-to-point connections.
  • This will make the redundant paths between two routers
  • This will form the double equal relationship between the two routers (for example for EIGRP or OSPF).
  • Or we can tunnel just for the exchange of traffic between two routers.

  My Question:

  1. What is the standard in this topology using the two connection for iGP peering or just tunnel in the real world?
  2. What is the standard in this topology using the two connection for iGP peering or tunnel just in a review?

  Case 2:

  If Fa 0/1 on both routers is all public IPs and in fact do not belong to the same subnet. So I think that we have to create a Tunnel between the two routers and then use the tunnel both routers for iGP peer.

  My Question:

  • I just want to know there is a valid case and also do we get this case in a review?

  What comments can you do on both cases freely, I just create these two cases to clear my mind.

  Basically the tunnel's link to Point Virtual Point between two routers. When you have two router physically connected by Point to point the link for this tunnel has no utility, but if you have two routers separate my many network jumps then GRE and IPsec tunnel is useful, and in this case tunnel gives you the ease of the logical Point to Point network.

  In the tunnel you can run any routing protocol ospf, eigrp, BGP route smiler or Sttic as interface point-to-point between two routers.

  Answer to your question on my opinion are as below

  case 1

  1. What is the standard in this topology using the two connection for iGP peering or just tunnel in the real world? -No use of the tunnel in this case in the real world so he will use any routing protocol between physical point-to-point interface.
  2. What is the standard in this topology using the two connection for iGP peering or tunnel just in a review? -Same as above point Exam are mostly due to the scenario of the real world (not sure what you're talking about what exam).

  Case 2

  • I just want to know there is a valid case and also do we get this case in a review? -Yes, this is valid in the real world, but also optical examination specially DMVPN and Ipsec tunnel in the CCIE exam.

  Please always evaluate the useful post!

  Kind regards

  Pawan (CCIE # 52104)

• AnyConnect vpn and a tunnel vpn Firewall even outside of the interface.

  I have a (no connection) remote access vpn and ipsec tunnel connection to return to our supplier is on the same firewall outside interface.

  The problem is when users remote vpn in they are not able to ping or join the provider above the tunnel network.

  now, I understand that this is a Bobby pin hair or u turn due to traffic but I'm still not able to understand how the remote vpn users can reach the network of the provider on the tunnel that ends on the same interface where remote access vpn is also configured.

  The firewall is asa 5510 worm 9.1

  Any suggestions please.

  Hello

  You are on the right track. Turning U will be required to allow vpn clients access to resources in the L2L VPN tunnel.

  The essence is that the split tunneling to access list must include subnets of the remote VPN to peer once the user connects they have directions pertaining to remote resources on anyconnect VPN

  Please go through this post and it will guide you how to set up the u turn on the SAA.
  https://supportforums.Cisco.com/document/52701/u-turninghairpinning-ASA

  http://www.Cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/ASA-5500-x-series-next-generation-firewalls/100918-ASA-sslvpn-00.html

  Kind regards
  Dinesh Moudgil

  PS Please rate helpful messages.

• IPSec Tunnel between Cisco 2801 and Netscren 50 with NAT and static

  Hello

  My problem isn't really the IPSec connection between two devices (it is already done...) But my problem is that I have a mail server on the site of Cisco, who have a static NAT from inside to outside. Due to the static NAT, I do not see the server in the VPN tunnel. I found a document that almost describes the problem:

  "Configuration of a router IPSEC Tunnel private-to-private network with NAT and static" (Document ID 14144)

  NAT takes place before the encryption verification!

  In this document, the solution is 'routing policy' using the loopback interface. But, how can I handle this with the Netscreen firewall. Someone has an idea?

  Thanks for any help

  Best regards

  Heiko

  Hello

  Try to change your static NAT with static NAT based policy.

  That is to say the static NAT should not be applicable for VPN traffic

  permissible static route map 1

  corresponds to the IP 104

  access-list 104 refuse host ip 10.1.110.10 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0

  access-list 104 allow the host ip 10.1.110.10 all

  IP nat inside source static 10.1.110.10 81.222.33.90 map of static route

  HTH

  Kind regards

  GE.

• NAT on 8.3 and VPN tunnel with overlapping addresses

  Hi all

  I was looking at this document from Cisco and I think I understand how to convert the nat policy than the version 8.3 and later, but I was wondering what is happening to the acl crypto, you are always using the same as the older versions? As you know the 8.3 then NAT requires to use the original instead of the address translated to the ACL, but I don't know if this applies to crypto ACL as well. Pointers?

  Example from the link:

   access-list new extended permit ip 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 !--- This access list (new) is used with the crypto map (outside_map) !--- in order to determine which traffic should be encrypted !--- and sent across the tunnel. access-list policy-nat extended permit ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 !--- The policy-nat ACL is used with the static !--- command in order to match the VPN traffic for translation. 

   static (inside,outside) 192.168.2.0 access-list policy-nat !--- It is a Policy NAT statement. !--- The static command with the access list (policy-nat), !--- which matches the VPN traffic and translates the source (192.168.1.0) to !--- 192.168.2.0 for outbound VPN traffic.

   crypto map outside_map 20 match address new !--- Define which traffic should be sent to the IPsec peer with the !--- access list (new).

  Thank you

  V

  Hi rc001g0241,

  I posted your question for clarity sake along.

  "what happens to the crypto acl, always use you even as older versions?"

  As you can see, Cisco doc you posted shows that you need to target for crypto engine is what happens after the nat policy has succeeded, illustrated here: "address match map crypto outside_map 20 new".

  "As you know the 8.3 then NAT requires to use the original instead of the address translated to the ACL, but I don't know if this applies to crypto ACL as well. Pointers?

  There is no such requirement and ACL target you in the engine crytop for the tunnel bound traffic can be a natted post address, that's what shows Cisco Doc and it is correct.

  Hope that answers your questions.

  Thank you

  Rizwan James

• NAT traffic on tunneling IPSec (ISR)

  Hello.

  I assumed that I have configure IPSec tunnel between a kind of 1811 and some checkpoint firewall. The IPSec part isen t that big of a deal, but system on the absence of "Side CheckPoint" traffic manager if the tunnel must be from a public IP address and the only source of IP address.

  So, let's say that my ISP gave me 10.10.1.1 - 10.10.1.5, our clients Interior have an IP address of 192.168.10.0/24 range and the remote application in the site "Checkpoint" is the IP address of 172.16.1.10. The result should be:

  IPSec tunnel is created by using the IP address 10.10.1.1 .

  Traffic of 192.168.1.0/24 customers should access the application to the address 172.16.1.10 using as a source above the IPSec tunnel address 10.10.1.2 .

  Is this possible? I guess that would mean I have NAT traffic goes, however, the IPSec tunnel, but I'm unable to get this to work. I googled all day long looking for something similar.

  Anyone who could enlighten us? Any ideas appreciated.

  Sheers!

  / Johan Christensson

  Yes, it is possible.  That you should get what you need.  Let us know if it works or not.

  extended policy-NAT IP access list

  ip permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.1.10

  nat pool IP LAN-Checkpoint 10.10.1.2 10.10.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0

  IP nat inside source list policy-NAT pool LAN-point of overload control

• Protection of IPSEC Tunnel and tunnel QOS shaping does no formatting.

  I have an implosion of the little brain as to why it won't work.

  I tried the QOS policy on tunnel interfaces and the ATM interface. No formatting occurs. Interfaces to transmit at their leisure.

  Please can someone have a better day me to tell me what I am doing wrong?

  Here is the config relevant (and standard). without the political order applied anywhere. Any help appreciated.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  class-map correspondence-everything APPSERVEURS
  match the name of group-access TERMINALSERVERS
  class-map correspondence-any VOICE
  sip protocol game
  match Protocol rtp
  match dscp ef
  !
  !
  Policy-map QOSPOLICY
  class VOICE
  priority 100
  class APPSERVEURS
  33% of bandwidth
  class class by default
  Fair/salon-tail 16
  Policy-map of TUNNEL
  class class by default
  form average 350000
  QOSPOLICY service-policy
  !
  !
  interface Tunnel0
  bandwidth 350
  IP 172.20.58.2 255.255.255.0
  IP mtu 1420
  load-interval 30
  QoS before filing
  source of Dialer0 tunnel
  destination tunnel X.X.X.X
  ipv4 ipsec tunnel mode
  tunnel path-mtu-discovery
  Tunnel IPSECPROFILE ipsec protection profile
  !
  Tunnel1 interface
  bandwidth 350
  IP 172.21.58.2 255.255.255.0
  IP mtu 1420
  load-interval 30
  delay 58000
  QoS before filing
  source of Dialer0 tunnel
  destination tunnel Y.Y.Y.Y
  ipv4 ipsec tunnel mode
  tunnel path-mtu-discovery
  Tunnel IPSECPROFILE ipsec protection profile
  !
  !
  ATM0/0/0 interface
  no ip address
  load-interval 30
  No atm ilmi-keepalive
  !
  point-to-point interface ATM0/0/0.1
  PVC 0/38
  aal5mux encapsulation ppp Dialer
  Dialer pool-member 1
  !
  !
  interface Dialer0
  bandwidth 400
  the negotiated IP address

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Thank you

  Paul

  Paul,

  One of the reasons could be because of the VTI overload.

  That being said I don't know which is the way to go with your QoS:

  https://Tools.Cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsz63683/?reffering_site=dumpcr

  My suggestion: give it a try with 15.2 M/T and prosecute TAC with discount people rather than VPN QoS ;-)

  M.

• Endpoints NAT and tunnel

  I have two ASA firewall on different subnets, each with their own internet connection.  An ipsec tunnel is set up between my company and another company that ends on one of my ASA firewalls.  The remote end of the tunnel will not support a second endpoint of the tunnel for redundancy.

  For this reason, I was wondering if it is possible to route the packets that establish the tunnel on the second firewall and simply NAT the source address to the address of my main firewall outside address.  The tunnel is configured to be established by interesting traffic from my business side.

  My ISP, in case my main connection goes down, you can route packets intended for my end point of tunnel to my second internet connection firewall.  I think if I can just NAT address of endpoint of the tunnel (destination address) in the address assigned to my second firewall outside interface, I could set up the tunnel in this way. Anyone know if this is supported?  I know only about 10 years ago, it wasn't but I've heard that this can be done now.

  Thank you.

  It should work.

  I saw him work like this at least in cisco equipment.

  I also think that if you see this problem with NAT, should be fixed by NAT - T (when the devices sense that there is a NAT device on the way, packages 5 and 6 for Exchange of key go to UDP 4500).

  It seems like it should work.

  Federico.

• Public and private IPs on the same Interface by using NAT Exemption/policy NAT

  I'm looking for some feedback on whether my thoughts on the installation program will run.

  Equipment: PIX 515E 6.2 (2)

  Scenario:

  The inside interface of the PIX will host 3 blocks of addresses IP - 24 public 2 blocks and 1 private/16 block. (All IP addresses have been replaced by dummy blocks.)

  Blocks of audiences:

  * 192.168.10.0/24

  * 192.168.20.0/24

  Block of private:

  * 10.50.0.0/16

  Traffic from the public 2/24 blocks should go through the firewall without address translation.

  The two blocs of the public will be able to receive connections initiated from the Internet.

  Public blocks will need to be able to send and receive traffic on a static VPN tunnel to our headquarters without subject to address translation

  Traffic leaving the sector private/16 block should be subjected to PAT before passing through the firewall.

  Private/block 16 will not receive incoming traffic from the Internet (other than responses to outbound connections initiated from within the private block).

  However, the private block will also have to be able to send and receive traffic on a static VPN tunnel to our headquarters * without * subject to address translation (i.e. hosts on our corporate network must be able to initiate connections to the private block and vice versa).

  The inside interface of the PIX will be connected to a Catalyst 3xxx series layer 3 switch, which will be responsible for routing all internal (so the PIX will never be routing of traffic on the interface, it was received).

  My ideas on how to implement are:

  * Use the exemption of NAT to exempt public address translation blocks. This will allow incoming and outgoing connections through the firewall.

  * Use the exemption of NAT to exempt the block private NAT when connecting to our head office on the VPN tunnel.

  * Use policy NAT w / PAT to translate the block private connecting to all other hosts.

  I have translated these thoughts in the following configuration snippet.

  Because the NAT exemption is processed before policy NAT in the evaluation of the NAT rules, I believe that this should allow the public IP blocks treat incoming/outgoing traffic without translation, while submitting the private translation block (except during handling of incoming/outgoing connections to our network of corporate office).

  Can someone confirm my assumptions about this?

  # ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  traffic of # which should be exempted from translation

  permit ip 192.168.10.0 access list nat_exempt 255.255.255.0 any

  nat_exempt 192.168.20.0 ip access list allow 255.255.255.0 any

  nat_exempt ip 10.50.0.0 access list allow 255.255.0.0 10.100.0.0/16

  traffic of # which should be the subject of translation

  policy_nat ip 10.50.0.0 access list allow 255.255.0.0 any

  # Suppose 192.168.5.1 is the address to use for PAT

  Global (outside) 1 192.168.5.1

  NAT (inside) 0-list of access nat_exempt

  NAT (inside) 1 access-list policy_nat

  # assumes that 192.168.10.7 is the IP address of the inside layer 3 switch

  Route inside 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.7 1

  Route inside 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.7 1

  Route inside 10.50.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.10.7 1

  #assume the following configuration sections appear elsewhere: static tunnel VPN, ACL, ifconfig, etc..

  # ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Yes, this will work, even if you don't need political NAT for the 10.50.0.0 network. For PAT the 10.50.0.0 network when to anywhere (except via VPN) just do:

  Global 1 192.168.15.1 (outside)

  NAT (inside) 1 10.50.0.0 255.255.0.0

  As I said, you have works perfectly, the above is just an easier way to do it.

• Strange problem in IPSec Tunnel - 8.4 NAT (2)

  Helloo all,.

  This must be the strangest question I've seen since the year last on my ASA.

  I have an ASA 5540, who runs the code of 8.4 (2) without any problem until I ran into this problem last week and I spent sleepless nights with no resolution! Then, take a deep breath and here is a brief description of my setup and the problem:

  A Simple IPSEC tunnel between my 8.4 (2) ASA 5540 and a Juniper SSG 140 6.3.0r9.0 (road OS based VPN) screen

  The tunnel rises without any problem but the ASA refused to encrypt the traffic but it decrypts with GLORY!

  Here are a few outputs debug, see the output and a package tracer output that also has an explanation of my problem of NAT WEIRD:

  my setup - (I won't get into the details of encryption tunnel as my tunnel negotiations are perfect and returns from the outset when the ASA is configured as response only)

  CISCO ASA - IPSec network details

  LAN - 10.2.4.0/28

  REMOTE NETWORK - 192.168.171.8/32

  JUNIPER SSG 140 - IPSec networks details

  ID OF THE PROXY:

  LAN - 192.168.171.8/32

  REMOTE NETWORK - 10.2.4.0/28

  Name host # sh cry counterpart his ipsec

  peer address:

  Tag crypto map: outside_map, seq num: 5, local addr:

  outside_cryptomap_4 to access extended list ip 10.2.4.0 allow 255.255.255.240 host 192.168.171.8

  local ident (addr, mask, prot, port): (10.2.4.0/255.255.255.240/0/0)

  Remote ident (addr, mask, prot, port): (192.168.171.8/255.255.255.255/0/0)

  current_peer:

  #pkts program: encrypt 0, #pkts: 0, #pkts digest: 0

  #pkts decaps: 72, #pkts decrypt: 72, #pkts check: 72

  compressed #pkts: 0, unzipped #pkts: 0

  #pkts uncompressed: 0, comp #pkts failed: 0, #pkts Dang failed: 0

  success #frag before: 0, failures before #frag: 0, #fragments created: 0

  Sent #PMTUs: 0, #PMTUs rcvd: 0, reassembly: 20th century / of frgs #decapsulated: 0

  #send errors: 0, #recv errors: 0

  local crypto endpt. : 0, remote Start. crypto: 0

  Path mtu 1500, fresh ipsec generals 58, media, mtu 1500

  current outbound SPI: 5041C19F

  current inbound SPI: 0EC13558

  SAS of the esp on arrival:

  SPI: 0x0EC13558 (247543128)

  transform: esp-3des esp-sha-hmac no compression

  running parameters = {L2L, Tunnel}

  slot: 0, id_conn: 22040576, crypto-card: outside_map

  calendar of his: service life remaining key (s): 3232

  Size IV: 8 bytes

  support for replay detection: Y

  Anti-replay bitmap:

  0xFFFFFFFF to 0xFFFFFFFF

  outgoing esp sas:

  SPI: 0x5041C19F (1346486687)

  transform: esp-3des esp-sha-hmac no compression

  running parameters = {L2L, Tunnel}

  slot: 0, id_conn: 22040576, crypto-card: outside_map

  calendar of his: service life remaining key (s): 3232

  Size IV: 8 bytes

  support for replay detection: Y

  Anti-replay bitmap:

  0x00000000 0x00000001

  CONTEXTS for this IPSEC VPN tunnel:

  # Sh asp table det vpn context host name

  VPN CTX = 0x0742E6BC

  By peer IP = 192.168.171.8

  Pointer = 0x78C94BF8

  State = upwards

  Flags = BA + ESP

  ITS = 0X9C28B633

  SPI = 0x5041C19D

  Group = 0

  Pkts = 0

  Pkts bad = 0

  Incorrect SPI = 0

  Parody = 0

  Bad crypto = 0

  Redial Pkt = 0

  Call redial = 0

  VPN = filter

  VPN CTX = 0x07430D3C

  By peer IP = 192.168.1.8

  Pointer = 0x78F62018

  State = upwards

  Flags = DECR + ESP

  ITS = 0X9C286E3D

  SPI = 0x9B6910C5

  Group = 1

  Pkts = 297

  Pkts bad = 0

  Incorrect SPI = 0

  Parody = 0

  Bad crypto = 0

  Redial Pkt = 0

  Call redial = 0

  VPN = filter

  outside_cryptomap_4 to access extended list ip 10.2.4.0 allow 255.255.255.240 host 192.168.171.8

  NAT (inside, outside) static source Ren - Ren - about destination static counterpart-host peer to route non-proxy-arp-search

  network of the Ren - around object

  subnet 10.2.4.0 255.255.255.240

  network of the host object counterpart

  Home 192.168.171.8

  HS cry ipsec his

  IKE Peer:

  Type: L2L role: answering machine

  Generate a new key: no State: MM_ACTIVE

  output packet tracer extracted a packet transmitted by the network of 10.2.4.0/28 to 192.168.171.8 host

  Phase: 7

  Type: VPN

  Subtype: encrypt

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  Direct flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x7789d788, priority = 70, domain = encrypt, deny = false

  Hits = 2, user_data is0x742e6bc, cs_id = 0x7ba38680, reverse, flags = 0 x 0 = 0 protocol

  IP/ID=10.2.4.0 SRC, mask is 255.255.255.240, port = 0

  IP/ID=192.168.171.8 DST, mask is 255.255.255.255, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = none, output_ifc = external

  VPN settings corresponding to the encrytpion + encapsulation and the hits here increment only when I run a test of tracer from my host on the remote peer inside package.

  A tracer complete package out for a packet of the 10.2.4.1 255.255.255.255 network to host 192.168.171.8:

  Phase: 1

  Type: ACCESS-LIST

  Subtype:

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Implicit rule

  Additional information:

  Direct flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x77ebd1b0, priority = 1, domain = allowed, deny = false

  hits = 3037156, user_data = 0 x 0, cs_id = 0 x 0, l3_type = 0 x 8

  Mac SRC = 0000.0000.0000, mask is 0000.0000.0000

  DST = 0000.0000.0000 Mac, mask is 0100.0000.0000

  input_ifc = output_ifc = any to inside,

  Phase: 2

  Type:-ROUTE SEARCH

  Subtype: entry

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  in 192.168.171.0 255.255.255.0 outside

  Phase: 3

  Type: IP-OPTIONS

  Subtype:

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  Direct flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x77ec1030, priority = 0, sector = inspect-ip-options, deny = true

  hits = 212950, user_data = 0 x 0, cs_id = 0 x 0, reverse, flags = 0 x 0 = 0 protocol

  IP/ID=0.0.0.0 SRC, mask is 0.0.0.0, port = 0

  IP/ID=0.0.0.0 DST, mask is 0.0.0.0, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = output_ifc = any to inside,

  Phase: 4

  Type:

  Subtype:

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  Direct flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x7c12cb18, priority = 18, area = import-export flows, deny = false

  hits = 172188, user_data = 0x78b1f438, cs_id = 0 x 0, use_real_addr, flags = 0 x 0,

  IP/ID=0.0.0.0 SRC, mask is 0.0.0.0, port = 0

  IP/ID=0.0.0.0 DST, mask is 0.0.0.0, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = output_ifc = any to inside,

  Phase: 5

  Type: NAT

  Subtype:

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  NAT (inside, outside) static source Ren - Ren - about destination static counterpart-host peer to route non-proxy-arp-search

  Additional information:

  Definition of static 10.2.4.1/2700 to 10.2.4.1/2700

  Direct flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x77e0a878, priority = 6, area = nat, deny = false

  hits = 9, user_data is 0x7b7360a8, cs_id = 0 x 0, use_real_addr, flags = 0 x 0, proto

  IP/ID=10.2.4.1 SRC, mask is 255.255.255.240, port = 0

  IP/ID=192.168.171.8 DST, mask is 255.255.255.255, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = inside, outside = output_ifc

  
  

  (it's the weird NAT problem I see. I see the number of hits is increment only when I run the packet tracer understands even I have pings (traffic) the 192.168.171.8 constant welcomes the 10.2.4.1/28)-s'il please see the package I pasted after the capture section)

  Phase: 6

  Type: VPN

  Subtype: encrypt

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  Direct flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x7b8751f8, priority = 70, domain = encrypt, deny = false

  hits = 3, user_data = 0x7432b74, cs_id = 0x7ba38680, reverse, flags = 0 x 0, proto

  IP/ID=10.2.4.1 SRC, mask is 255.255.255.240, port = 0

  IP/ID=192.168.171.8 DST, mask is 255.255.255.255, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = none, output_ifc = external

  Phase: 7

  Type: VPN

  Subtype: ipsec-tunnel-flow

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  Reverse flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x78b0c280, priority = 69 = ipsec-tunnel-flow area, deny = false

  hits = 154, user_data is 0x7435f94, cs_id = 0 x 0, reverse, flags = 0 x 0 = 0 protocol

  IP/ID=192.168.171.8 SRC, mask is 255.255.255.255, port = 0

  IP/ID=10.2.4.1 DST, mask is 255.255.255.240, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = out, output_ifc = any

  Phase: 8

  Type: IP-OPTIONS

  Subtype:

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  Reverse flow from returns search rule:

  ID = 0x77e7a510, priority = 0, sector = inspect-ip-options, deny = true

  hits = 184556, user_data = 0 x 0, cs_id = 0 x 0, reverse, flags = 0 x 0 = 0 protocol

  IP/ID=0.0.0.0 SRC, mask is 0.0.0.0, port = 0

  IP/ID=0.0.0.0 DST, mask is 0.0.0.0, port = 0, dscp = 0 x 0

  input_ifc = out, output_ifc = any

  Phase: 9

  Type: CREATING STREAMS

  Subtype:

  Result: ALLOW

  Config:

  Additional information:

  New workflow created with the 119880921 id, package sent to the next module

  Information module for forward flow...

  snp_fp_tracer_drop

  snp_fp_inspect_ip_options

  snp_fp_tcp_normalizer

  snp_fp_translate

  snp_fp_adjacency

  snp_fp_encrypt

  snp_fp_fragment

  snp_ifc_stat

  Information for reverse flow...

  snp_fp_tracer_drop

  snp_fp_inspect_ip_options

  snp_fp_ipsec_tunnel_flow

  snp_fp_translate

  snp_fp_tcp_normalizer

  snp_fp_adjacency

  snp_fp_fragment

  snp_ifc_stat

  Result:

  input interface: inside

  entry status: to the top

  entry-line-status: to the top

  output interface: outside

  the status of the output: to the top

  output-line-status: to the top

  Action: allow

  Hostname # sh Cap A1

  8 packets captured

  1: 12:26:53.376033 192.168.10.252 > 10.2.4.1: icmp: echo request

  2: 12:26:53.376597 10.2.4.1 > 192.168.10.252: icmp: echo reply

  3: 12:26:56.487905 192.168.171.8 > 10.2.4.1: icmp: echo request

  4: 12:27:01.489217 192.168.171.8 > 10.2.4.1: icmp: echo request

  5: 12:27:03.378245 192.168.10.252 > 10.2.4.1: icmp: echo request

  6: 12:27:03.378825 10.2.4.1 > 192.168.10.252: icmp: echo reply

  7: 12:27:06.491597 192.168.171.8 > 10.2.4.1: icmp: echo request

  8: 12:27:11.491856 192.168.171.8 > 10.2.4.1: icmp: echo request

  8 packets shown

  As you can see, there is no echo response packet at all because the package may not be wrapped while he was sent to.

  I'm Karen with it. In addition, he is a firewall multi-tenant live production with no problems at all outside this for a Juniper ipsec tunnel!

  Also, the 192.168.10.0/24 is another remote network of IPSec tunnel to this network of 10.2.4.0/28 and this IPSEC tunnel has a similar Juniper SSG 140 screen os 6.3.0r9.0 at the remote end and this woks like a charm with no problems, but the 171 is not be encrypted by the ASA at all.

  If someone could help me, that would be greatt and greatly appreciated!

  Thanks heaps. !

  Perfect! Now you must find something else inside for tomorrow--> forecast rain again

  Please kindly marks the message as answered while others may learn from it. Thank you.

• IPSec tunnel between a client connection mobility and WRV200

  Someone has set up an IPSec tunnel between a client connection mobility and WRV200? I can't get the right configuration.

  Agitation, these products are treated by the Cisco Small Business support community. Please refer to the URL: https://supportforums.cisco.com/community/netpro/small-business