<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic VPN unnumbered VTI and ClusterXL in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84349#M11258</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi there,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've R80.20 open server cluster env. with ClusterXL and two VPN tunnels between AWS. These are configured with Numbered VTIs.&lt;BR /&gt;Now I need to add one VPN tunnel with Azure and there is Route-based or Policy-based VPN available.&lt;BR /&gt;I've understand that Route-based should be configured with Unnumbered VTI tunnel.&lt;BR /&gt;I found an old Checkpoint exam question from the year 2015 and an answer is that Unnumbered VTIs are only supported VRRP HA active-passive mode.&lt;BR /&gt;Is this same HA restriction still valid in R80.x?&lt;BR /&gt;I've read the Site to Site VPN Administration Guide R80.20 and all cluster examples is only for numbered VTI.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 13:31:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>P_Hippelainen</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-05-06T13:31:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>VPN unnumbered VTI and ClusterXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84349#M11258</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi there,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've R80.20 open server cluster env. with ClusterXL and two VPN tunnels between AWS. These are configured with Numbered VTIs.&lt;BR /&gt;Now I need to add one VPN tunnel with Azure and there is Route-based or Policy-based VPN available.&lt;BR /&gt;I've understand that Route-based should be configured with Unnumbered VTI tunnel.&lt;BR /&gt;I found an old Checkpoint exam question from the year 2015 and an answer is that Unnumbered VTIs are only supported VRRP HA active-passive mode.&lt;BR /&gt;Is this same HA restriction still valid in R80.x?&lt;BR /&gt;I've read the Site to Site VPN Administration Guide R80.20 and all cluster examples is only for numbered VTI.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 13:31:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84349#M11258</guid>
      <dc:creator>P_Hippelainen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-06T13:31:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN unnumbered VTI and ClusterXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84620#M11259</link>
      <description>I've never heard of that limitation myself.&lt;BR /&gt;Also don't see any mention of it in current docs.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2020 20:06:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84620#M11259</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-08T20:06:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN unnumbered VTI and ClusterXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84623#M11260</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Unnumbered VTIs are not supported on the SecurePlatform OS, which is probably what that old exam question is referring to.&amp;nbsp; They are supported on the Gaia OS according to&amp;nbsp;sk109045.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2020 21:01:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/84623#M11260</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-08T21:01:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN unnumbered VTI and ClusterXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/85392#M11261</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've done this at first as numbered VTI (vpnt7) but the traffic goes a little bit strange.&lt;BR /&gt;VPN tunnel ID = 7&lt;BR /&gt;Local VIP 169.254.0.1&lt;BR /&gt;Remote address = "Azure public IP"&lt;BR /&gt;Interoperable Device = "Azure public IP", VPN domain = empty group&lt;BR /&gt;Cluster VPN domain = empty group&lt;BR /&gt;Cluster Network Topology vpnt7 = leads to specific (azure VM network)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Community: Star, Prefer IKEv2..., Set Permanent (on all...comm), One VPN t.../Gw pair, Disable NAT...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Policy:&lt;BR /&gt;from on-premise to azure = RDP,ICMP, VPN column = int&amp;gt;"comm", "comm"&amp;gt;"comm", "comm"&amp;gt;int&lt;BR /&gt;from azure to on-premise = RDP,ICMP&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When the RDP connection is started from an on-premise client to a Azure VM, the connection is seen coming from the Internal interface (eth'x') and decrypted.&lt;BR /&gt;The VM will answer back from External interface (eth'y', not tunnel) but the on-premise cluster gateway drops it as address spoofing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When the connection is started from Azure VM it's seen coming from External interface vpnt7 and it is accepted and the on-premise client will answer back.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've no idea why the connection from on-premise to azure seems to be OK, but the answer is as address spoofing and it's seen as separate connection.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2020 15:06:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-unnumbered-VTI-and-ClusterXL/m-p/85392#M11261</guid>
      <dc:creator>P_Hippelainen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-15T15:06:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

