<?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: Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155340#M26413</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your answers!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 21 Aug 2022 13:45:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>IT_Eng</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-08-21T13:45:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155005#M26362</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Mates,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have an existing community with a tunnel to Palo Alto A with subnet 10.16.0.0/15 behind it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We need to create a new tunnel in a different community to a Palo Alto B with a subnet of 10.16.100.0/24.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The tunnel to tunnel B is not even initiating IKE, all the traffic is going to the existing tunnel to Palo Alto A.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I know that the proper subset (as called by Checkpoint) is not supported in general, but is it not clear which side the proper subset is referred to.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only option I see is a route-based VPN for the new tunnel. But I thought I will ask here before if there is something different to try.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;SMS and gateway os R81.10&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2022 16:26:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155005#M26362</guid>
      <dc:creator>IT_Eng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-15T16:26:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155160#M26394</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You'd have to define the encryption domains without overlaps for this to work correctly, I suspect.&lt;BR /&gt;If that's not possible, it does probably mean moving to route-based VPNs.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 17:54:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155160#M26394</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-17T17:54:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155198#M26395</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the answer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I've already tried route-based in the meantime, without success. But, it was configured only on tunnel B so I presume this was the reason that it didn't work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any other suggestions? I'm trying PBR as I write this comment.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:36:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155198#M26395</guid>
      <dc:creator>IT_Eng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-18T08:36:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155227#M26397</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Mixing route and domain based VPNs has some limitations:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk109340&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=IPSec" target="_blank"&gt;https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk109340&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=IPSec&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Namely that domain based VPNs take precedence over route-based VPNs, which is exactly what you're experience here.&lt;BR /&gt;PBR probably won't work as I believe domain-based VPNs take priority.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:26:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155227#M26397</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-18T15:26:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155340#M26413</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your answers!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 21 Aug 2022 13:45:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155340#M26413</guid>
      <dc:creator>IT_Eng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-21T13:45:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Site-to-Site VPN with overlap subnets between communities</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155525#M26510</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;A possible solution may be for the 3rd-party to Statically NAT the overlapping subnet to another subnet that doesn't collide with either their internal subnets or CP VPN domains (probably for the peer having 10.16.100.0/24). From CP side you'll need to define the NAT subnet as part of the peer's encryption domain and remove the overlap section from it.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:21:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Site-to-Site-VPN-with-overlap-subnets-between-communities/m-p/155525#M26510</guid>
      <dc:creator>motip</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-23T14:21:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

