<?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: Best practive, NAT-T Device behind Check Point Appliance in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18258#M3262</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sorry for my late answer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem has been solved ... it was not an Check Point issue, it was a misconfiguration of a third party VPN appliance ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;but the IT company of this third party devices insisted until the very last minute that everything is ok on their end. &lt;BR /&gt;(they used IPsec in aggressive mode + psk instead of NAT-T with certificates)&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;At the end it was the Check Point appliance worked like a charm.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;best regards&lt;BR /&gt;Thomas.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:46:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-02-18T14:46:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Best practive, NAT-T Device behind Check Point Appliance</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18256#M3260</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Checkmates, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;maybe an eays question:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I&amp;nbsp;have a customer with several&amp;nbsp;Check Point 5200 on R80.10 Take 121.&lt;BR /&gt;in generall an easy standard setup.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;but for remote access of some industrial systems the customer has several other Check Point appliance places behind the the firewalls on&amp;nbsp; the nternal networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;then we discoverd that initiating an IPsec Tunnel (NAT-T)&amp;nbsp;from inside to the external peer was not succesfull.&lt;BR /&gt;we did a NAT using the Main IP of the firewall object. ... &lt;BR /&gt;could this be a problem?&lt;BR /&gt;is it better to have ONE different NAT IP for all internal VPN appliances&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;or&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;should i use ONE dedicated&amp;nbsp;IP for each VPN appliance?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i did the made a dediacated&amp;nbsp;Hide NAT Rule for every single VPN appliance ... now iam waiting for results from the customer ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in tcpdup i saw:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;09:11:48.069849 IP 10.2.125.14.4500 &amp;gt; X:X:X.57.4500: isakmp-nat-keep-alive&lt;BR /&gt;09:11:48.070074 IP 10.2.125.14.4500 &amp;gt; X:X:X.57.4500: isakmp-nat-keep-alive&lt;BR /&gt;09:11:52.075466 IP 10.2.125.14.4500 &amp;gt; X:X:X.57.4500: NONESP-encap: isakmp: phase 2/others ? inf[E]&lt;BR /&gt;09:11:52.866336 IP 10.2.125.14.123 &amp;gt; X.X.X.76.123: NTPv3, Client, length 48&lt;BR /&gt;09:11:56.956663 IP 10.2.125.14.4500 &amp;gt; X:X:X.57.4500: UDP-encap: ESP(spi=0xcf615dfa,seq=0xac), length 148&lt;BR /&gt;09:12:08.086248 IP 10.2.125.14.4500 &amp;gt; X:X:X.57.4500: isakmp-nat-keep-alive&lt;BR /&gt;09:12:08.086481 IP 10.2.125.14.4500 &amp;gt; X:X:X.57.4500: isakmp-nat-keep-alive&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in SmartLog&amp;nbsp; i see a log IKE packets, sometimes some IKE_NAT_TRAVERAL.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;so what would u suggest:&lt;BR /&gt;NAT with ONE outoging public IP for all appliances&lt;BR /&gt;ONE public NAT&amp;nbsp;IP for each VPN appliance ...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;so still the customer didnt told me if it works ... we will see.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;best regards&lt;BR /&gt;Thomas.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:42:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18256#M3260</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-12-19T15:42:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Best practive, NAT-T Device behind Check Point Appliance</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18257#M3261</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The whole purpose of NAT traversal is to work with HIDE NAT, so this should not be required.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is performing the VPN in this case? (both endpoints)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:40:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18257#M3261</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-12-19T19:40:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Best practive, NAT-T Device behind Check Point Appliance</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18258#M3262</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sorry for my late answer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem has been solved ... it was not an Check Point issue, it was a misconfiguration of a third party VPN appliance ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;but the IT company of this third party devices insisted until the very last minute that everything is ok on their end. &lt;BR /&gt;(they used IPsec in aggressive mode + psk instead of NAT-T with certificates)&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;At the end it was the Check Point appliance worked like a charm.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;best regards&lt;BR /&gt;Thomas.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:46:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Best-practive-NAT-T-Device-behind-Check-Point-Appliance/m-p/18258#M3262</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-18T14:46:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

