From: mike-newsgroup@-DELETETHISPART-.upcraft.com
Fred Marshall wrote:
> "Mike Drechsler - SPAM PROTECTED EMAIL"
> wrote in message
> news:paK9i.248353$oS7.31459@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> Fred Marshall wrote:
>>> I'm using RV042s for VPNs and general routing. Often there are questions
>>> but seem to be no place for answers.
>>>
>>> For example: if one is using an RV042 for VPN, then what affect does the
>>> routing table have on the VPN packets?
>>>
>>> Is there any place where this sort of thing is reasonably described? Or,
>>> is the answer to this one question supposed to be obvious?
>>>
>>> Fred
>> apparently it's supposed to be obvious.
>>
>> It does help to have prior experience with setting up IPSEC VPN tunnels
>> and a good understanding of how it works.
>>
>> Routing tables will have limited use when you are trying to move traffic.
>> A routing table will not affect the contents or intended contents of an
>> encrypted packet.
>>
>> If you want to give an example of what you are attempting to setup then
>> perhaps you will find some help.
>
> Mike,
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> I can envision the VPN "block" running in series or in parallel with the
> routing table "block". In the first case, on the incoming / post-decryption
> end. In the second case, totally independent. Not much else makes sense to
> me but I sure can be enlightened.
>
> What I've been trying to do is like this:
>
> Launch a packet destined for a "foreign" private subnet.
> Route such packets at their source to the LAN address of the RV042 VPN
> router.
> From there over the internet.
> When the packet is received at the other end of the tunnel, it will still be
> destined for a "foreign" private subnet.
> i.e. the packet is destined neither for the local nor the remote subnet.
>
> So, I add a route on the receiving RV042 that points such packets to a
> gateway on the remote LAN. If this works then such packets should be
> directed to that gateway. But, it doesn't seem to work.
>
> Here are the addresses involved:
>
> Source: 192.168.113.130 Destination 192.168.1.4
> 255.255.255.224 Route for destination: 192.168.113.157 the RV042
> VPN
>
> (I guess at this point there is no route in the RV042 for this address
> range. Can the RV042 routing table route packets into its own VPN? I don't
> see how). So, this could be a problem I guess. The destination *is not* in
> the VPN remote LAN range.
>
> (internet)
>
> RV042 VPN 192.168.113.198 w/Route: 192.168.1.0 /24 > 192.168.113.254
> 255.255.255.192 255.255.255.192
> has port
> on:192.168.1.0/24
>
> It appears that the packets don't arrive at the destined router on the
> remote LAN.
>
> If the RV042 routing table does not deal with unencrypted packets coming out
> of the VPN then this method wouldn't be expected to work. It would really
> help to know what to expect without running a bunch of experiments.
>
> Or, maybe the VPN-initiating RV042 doesn't accept packets thus destined - as
> they are on different subnets? My confusion here is that there's a remotely
> managed Cisco router on site that does pretty much the same thing. It takes
> the packets and routes them to appropriate ports just fine (and for a lot
> more $$).
>
> Fred
>
>
The VPN endpoints will not encrypt any traffic that is not included in a
security association. In other words the range of IP's you are trying
to reach and the range of IP's the traffic is coming from MUST be
included in the subnets for the encrypted tunnel. You cannot use the
encrypted tunnel as a route where arbitrary packets can enter on one
side and exit the other side. IPSEC is meant as an end to end ecryption
mechanism so it will refuse any traffic that is not specifically
included in the subnet ranges that were used to build to the tunnel.
So I'm looking at the VPN Tunnel settings on an RV082 which I assume has
the same user interface as the rv042. Where it says Local and remote
security group type, IP address, and subnet mask. These will define the
range of IP's that will go through the tunnel connection. The solution
would be to either create a larger range of IP's to include in the local
and remote subnets or if that is not practical then create a second
tunnel with a different set of remote and local IP's that will be sent
encrypted to the other router.
I'm sorry I cannot comment on your specific examples. I have no clue
what you are trying to do with the IP's you listed, it's simply not
clear to me the way you wrote things down.
Here is a simple example.
So the basic case is you create a VPN tunnel that connects the
192.168.100.0/24 subnet in your estern office with the 192.168.200.0/24
subnet on the other site at your western office. This is the simple
case and you would simply follow the examples in the documentation.
192.168.100.0/24(east)->RV042->Internet<-RV042<-192.168.200.0/24(west)
Now you are saying that you have multiple subnets in each office and you
want to route the traffic to the tunnel. So you are assuming that you
can just create a static routing table entry to point the traffic to the
IP of the router on the other end of the tunnel and you expect that the
packet would end up inside the tunnel as a result
So you have built a tunnel using the simple case example above.
Now you create a static route in the east that looks something like this:
You want:
192.168.101.0/24->192.168.100.1->INTERNET->192.168.200.1->192.168.201.0/24
On the east side you create a static route that says Destination ip:
192.168.201.0/24 (a subnet in the other office) uses gateway
192.168.200.1 (Internal IP of the router on the other site)
On the west side you create a similar static route that says Destination
ip: 192.168.101.0/24 uses gateway 192.168.100.1
But this will not work because these source and destination IP's are not
part of the original subnets of the tunnel they will not be encrypted or
sent across the tunnel.
What you need to do is create 2 parallel tunnels that go between the
same routers with different local and remote subnets.
192.168.100.0/24(east)->RV042->Internet<-RV042<-192.168.200.0/24(west)
192.168.101.0/24(east)->RV042->Internet<-RV042<-192.168.201.0/24(west)
Also the subnet definitions of the tunnel do not need to exactly match
the LAN subnet on the other side. You can make these larger as long as
the range of IP's in the larger subnet range is still correct for the
remote site. Also you can use expanded subnet ranges to create hub and
spoke configurations where one central site creates single tunnels to
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
