<?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 Is this a common/proven VPN Routing setup using vpn_route.conf? in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Is-this-a-common-proven-VPN-Routing-setup-using-vpn-route-conf/m-p/10999#M1595</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I searched for the right place asking this, nothing was 100% suitable, hope this place is not too wrong.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My question is basically about vpn routing. I uploaded a topology picture of the current setup and the target setup.&lt;BR /&gt;I think I put all the necessary information inside, nonetheless, below few words about it &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;The final target is like:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Communication between Site-Z and Site-D, E &amp;amp; F should be unencrypted but still inspected by the firewalls using dedicated private line&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Site-D is acting as hub for Site-E &amp;amp; F to reach Site-Z&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Site-D itself is communicating as well to Size-Z using the private line&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Private line is transparent to the SGWs. They just need to sent the traffic to the corresponding site RTR.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Current plannning:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Remove Site-D, E &amp;amp; F from Star VPN Community&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Using vpn_route.conf to promote FW_SiteD as Hub GW for Site-E &amp;amp; F&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Set some static routes on FW_SiteD to route traffic from Site-D, E &amp;amp; F through private line to Site-Z&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Set some static routes on FW_SiteZ to route traffic from Site-Z through private line to Site-D, E &amp;amp; F&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I tested this already in a lab and it´s working fine so far.&lt;BR /&gt;My question to you, is this a common / proven way to achieve the&amp;nbsp;target scenario? Or did i missed something / are there better ways to do?&lt;BR /&gt;I´m wondering if there is another way which is more, let´s say, "visible"?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I appreciate any kind of feedback, especially on any real world experience on this kind of setup.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rick&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:49:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Rick_Ther</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-10-29T16:49:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Is this a common/proven VPN Routing setup using vpn_route.conf?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Is-this-a-common-proven-VPN-Routing-setup-using-vpn-route-conf/m-p/10999#M1595</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I searched for the right place asking this, nothing was 100% suitable, hope this place is not too wrong.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My question is basically about vpn routing. I uploaded a topology picture of the current setup and the target setup.&lt;BR /&gt;I think I put all the necessary information inside, nonetheless, below few words about it &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;The final target is like:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Communication between Site-Z and Site-D, E &amp;amp; F should be unencrypted but still inspected by the firewalls using dedicated private line&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Site-D is acting as hub for Site-E &amp;amp; F to reach Site-Z&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Site-D itself is communicating as well to Size-Z using the private line&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Private line is transparent to the SGWs. They just need to sent the traffic to the corresponding site RTR.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Current plannning:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Remove Site-D, E &amp;amp; F from Star VPN Community&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Using vpn_route.conf to promote FW_SiteD as Hub GW for Site-E &amp;amp; F&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Set some static routes on FW_SiteD to route traffic from Site-D, E &amp;amp; F through private line to Site-Z&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Set some static routes on FW_SiteZ to route traffic from Site-Z through private line to Site-D, E &amp;amp; F&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I tested this already in a lab and it´s working fine so far.&lt;BR /&gt;My question to you, is this a common / proven way to achieve the&amp;nbsp;target scenario? Or did i missed something / are there better ways to do?&lt;BR /&gt;I´m wondering if there is another way which is more, let´s say, "visible"?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I appreciate any kind of feedback, especially on any real world experience on this kind of setup.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rick&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:49:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Is-this-a-common-proven-VPN-Routing-setup-using-vpn-route-conf/m-p/10999#M1595</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rick_Ther</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-29T16:49:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

