<?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: VPN routing and External interfaces in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227291#M43704</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey bro,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would say its normal, regardless. I actually wrote some docs about it, you can refer to below post. I know its route based tunnel to Azure, but it gives you an idea.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hope it helps.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Security-Gateways/Route-based-VPN-tunnel-to-Azure/m-p/206179/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufExTTjlYV1FXMUlGQVNMfDIwNjE3OXxTVUJTQ1JJUFRJT05TfGhL#M38950" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Security-Gateways/Route-based-VPN-tunnel-to-Azure/m-p/206179/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufExTTjlYV1FXMUlGQVNMfDIwNjE3OXxTVUJTQ1JJUFRJT05TfGhL#M38950&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:50:06 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-09-19T19:50:06Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>VPN routing and External interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227267#M43700</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Dear CheckMates&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have a simple cluster with 5+ External interfaces. This cluster has 5+ s2s VPN communities. Depends on the routing the VPN's interoperable devices are behind different external interfaces. The essence of this, this cluster has more than 5 External interfaces.&lt;BR /&gt;The VPNs work fine.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Until today.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I created a s2s VPN as before.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Short description:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;A_GW -&amp;gt; my_VPN_GW&lt;BR /&gt;B_VPN_peer -&amp;gt; peerGW&lt;BR /&gt;B_int -&amp;gt; peer interoperable device&lt;BR /&gt;B_enc -&amp;gt; network behind the peer (100.X.X.X/25 - yes it begins with 100)&lt;BR /&gt;A_int1 -&amp;gt; default route (this is the default route)&lt;BR /&gt;A_int2 -&amp;gt; the VPNpeer is behind this IF (from my_VPN_GW's point of view)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The issue:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The if I initiate for eg. a ping from my_VPN_GW to a host in the B_enc, the traffic leaves on the A_int1, although the B_VPN_peer is behind A_int_2 IF.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If I create a static-route -&amp;gt; the traffic goes where it should.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My question would be, this is a normal behavior if the ENC_DOM is not RFC1918?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Akos&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:28:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227267#M43700</guid>
      <dc:creator>AkosBakos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-09-19T16:28:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN routing and External interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227279#M43703</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Routing is not always needed but it is documented as needed.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;See&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk180613" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk180613&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;And&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk179485" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk179485&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If it is vsx or maestro check&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk160672" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk160672&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk76281" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk76281&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;All above is based that I think this is regarding domain based tunnels&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227279#M43703</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lesley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-09-19T18:23:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN routing and External interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227291#M43704</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey bro,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would say its normal, regardless. I actually wrote some docs about it, you can refer to below post. I know its route based tunnel to Azure, but it gives you an idea.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hope it helps.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Security-Gateways/Route-based-VPN-tunnel-to-Azure/m-p/206179/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufExTTjlYV1FXMUlGQVNMfDIwNjE3OXxTVUJTQ1JJUFRJT05TfGhL#M38950" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Security-Gateways/Route-based-VPN-tunnel-to-Azure/m-p/206179/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufExTTjlYV1FXMUlGQVNMfDIwNjE3OXxTVUJTQ1JJUFRJT05TfGhL#M38950&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:50:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VPN-routing-and-External-interfaces/m-p/227291#M43704</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-09-19T19:50:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

