<?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 Re: NAT-T and VPN issues with a CISCO Firepower in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143175#M22208</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Had alot of issues with NAT-T and most have been resolved by changing to ike version2.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 21:15:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Magnus-Holmberg</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-03-07T21:15:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAT-T and VPN issues with a CISCO Firepower</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143174#M22207</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;How's it going?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have a question that I would like to clarify.&lt;BR /&gt;I have a 6600 appliance which cannot establish a VPN with a CISCO Firepower, I have global NAT-T enabled in the appliance properties. On the CISCO side they use UDP encapsulation, but on the Check Point side the tunnel is established through IPSec and not NAT-T. So the behavior seems strange to me.&lt;BR /&gt;I changed offer_nat_t_initator parameter to true in order so if the peer wants to switch to using NAT-T port 4500 during the negotiation, we will offer it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But this didn't work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can NAT-T be forced over a specific tunnel?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 20:59:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143174#M22207</guid>
      <dc:creator>ArathCG</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-07T20:59:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT-T and VPN issues with a CISCO Firepower</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143175#M22208</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Had alot of issues with NAT-T and most have been resolved by changing to ike version2.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 21:15:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143175#M22208</guid>
      <dc:creator>Magnus-Holmberg</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-07T21:15:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT-T and VPN issues with a CISCO Firepower</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143176#M22209</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Magnus.&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks for the comment. I forgot to mention that I am working on IKEv2.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 22:06:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-T-and-VPN-issues-with-a-CISCO-Firepower/m-p/143176#M22209</guid>
      <dc:creator>ArathCG</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-07T22:06:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

