Re: [Shorewall-users] FW: IPsec Tunnel as Default Gateway for Branch Offices

2017-10-03 Thread Bill Shirley

Post your Shorewall config files.
zones
interfaces
hosts
tunnels
snat

I've found running conntrack is sometimes helpful in diagnosing problems.
'conntrack -L 2>&1 | grep 10.1.4.41'

Bill

On 10/3/2017 5:37 AM, Jason Timmins wrote:

Hi Tom,

That's a shame. Are you thinking that others on the Shorewall mailing list 
might be able to help?

We're looking to connect remote sites to a central Shorewall-based firewall and 
have their Internet traffic pass via that server (rather than going direct.) 
However, Tom and I can't figure-out why traffic from the IPsec tunnels isn't 
being NAT'd by the firewall. Anyone else got any ideas?

Cheers
Jason.

-Original Message-
From: Tom Eastep [mailto:teas...@shorewall.net]
Sent: 02 October 2017 17:11
To: Jason Timmins 
Cc: Shorewall Users 
Subject: Re: FW: [Shorewall-users] IPsec Tunnel as Default Gateway for Branch 
Offices

On 10/01/2017 01:27 PM, Jason Timmins wrote:

Hi Tom,

This trace file is a bit longer than I'd have liked but you should be able to 
find references to my machine, 10.1.4.41, trying to ping 8.8.8.8.


Okay -- you have no IPSEC policy covering these packets. What appears to be 
happening is that once they get through the routing stage of the IP stack flow, 
they are no longer processed by Netfilter (possibly because they match neither 
'pol ipsec' nor 'pol none'). As my own IPSEC foo is rather weak, my attempts to 
produce a working IPSEC policy configuration for this case have all failed.

Regards,

-Tom



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Shorewall-users mailing list
Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users


Re: [Shorewall-users] FW: IPsec Tunnel as Default Gateway for Branch Offices

2017-10-03 Thread Tom Eastep
Hi Jason,

There is an article at https://libreswan.org/wiki/Subnet_extrusion that
discusses this configuration. The solution is expressed in *Swan syntax;
the basic features are:

- Both the left and right subnets are 0.0.0.0/0.
- On the responder side, a 'passthrough' policy is added to allow VPN
access to the local LAN(s).

Hope that helps,

-Tom

On 10/03/2017 02:37 AM, Jason Timmins wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> That's a shame. Are you thinking that others on the Shorewall mailing list 
> might be able to help?
> 
> We're looking to connect remote sites to a central Shorewall-based firewall 
> and have their Internet traffic pass via that server (rather than going 
> direct.) However, Tom and I can't figure-out why traffic from the IPsec 
> tunnels isn't being NAT'd by the firewall. Anyone else got any ideas?
> 
> Cheers
> Jason.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Eastep [mailto:teas...@shorewall.net] 
> Sent: 02 October 2017 17:11
> To: Jason Timmins 
> Cc: Shorewall Users 
> Subject: Re: FW: [Shorewall-users] IPsec Tunnel as Default Gateway for Branch 
> Offices
> 
> On 10/01/2017 01:27 PM, Jason Timmins wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> This trace file is a bit longer than I'd have liked but you should be able 
>> to find references to my machine, 10.1.4.41, trying to ping 8.8.8.8.
>>
> 
> Okay -- you have no IPSEC policy covering these packets. What appears to be 
> happening is that once they get through the routing stage of the IP stack 
> flow, they are no longer processed by Netfilter (possibly because they match 
> neither 'pol ipsec' nor 'pol none'). As my own IPSEC foo is rather weak, my 
> attempts to produce a working IPSEC policy configuration for this case have 
> all failed.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Tom
> 


-- 
Tom Eastep\   Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with
Shoreline, \ an international standard?
Washington, USA \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't
http://shorewall.org \   understand
  \___



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Shorewall-users mailing list
Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users


Re: [Shorewall-users] FW: IPsec Tunnel as Default Gateway for Branch Offices

2017-10-03 Thread Jason Timmins
Hi Tom,

That's a shame. Are you thinking that others on the Shorewall mailing list 
might be able to help?

We're looking to connect remote sites to a central Shorewall-based firewall and 
have their Internet traffic pass via that server (rather than going direct.) 
However, Tom and I can't figure-out why traffic from the IPsec tunnels isn't 
being NAT'd by the firewall. Anyone else got any ideas?

Cheers
Jason.

-Original Message-
From: Tom Eastep [mailto:teas...@shorewall.net] 
Sent: 02 October 2017 17:11
To: Jason Timmins 
Cc: Shorewall Users 
Subject: Re: FW: [Shorewall-users] IPsec Tunnel as Default Gateway for Branch 
Offices

On 10/01/2017 01:27 PM, Jason Timmins wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> This trace file is a bit longer than I'd have liked but you should be able to 
> find references to my machine, 10.1.4.41, trying to ping 8.8.8.8.
> 

Okay -- you have no IPSEC policy covering these packets. What appears to be 
happening is that once they get through the routing stage of the IP stack flow, 
they are no longer processed by Netfilter (possibly because they match neither 
'pol ipsec' nor 'pol none'). As my own IPSEC foo is rather weak, my attempts to 
produce a working IPSEC policy configuration for this case have all failed.

Regards,

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep\   Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with
Shoreline, \ an international standard?
Washington, USA \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't
http://shorewall.org \   understand
  \___

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Shorewall-users mailing list
Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users