<?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: Route Based VPN Network SA no route in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256394#M43186</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Also, forgot to mention, for what is worth, I would always use numbered VTIs, as I found with unnumbered ones, it usually works way better if BGP is involved through the tunnel.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:30:55 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-09-02T13:30:55Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Route Based VPN Network SA no route</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256313#M43162</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We are having performance issues with a VPN tunnel solution up to Azure.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So we thought about setting another tunnel up so we can lab / troubleshoot on a designated test network.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Weirdly enough, when the new tunnel was set up (route based), we saw an SA negotiated between one random on prem network and one random Azure network.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;This affected production traffic.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;What's even weirder, is that when I issued&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;netstat -arn&lt;/STRONG&gt; as well as&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;show route&lt;/STRONG&gt; in&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;gaia,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;there were no routes pointing ot the new VPNT-interface, nor had BGP gone up.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;BGP is strictly configured with export and import route maps as well, but the neighborship was never formed, nor any routes installed.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I will look into this more tomorrow, but from my understanding, the same VNG was used on the Azure end.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So my question being .... if the Azure VNG initiated an SA between on prem-network&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;A&lt;/STRONG&gt; and Azure Network&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;B&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Would Check Point accept that?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;In the VPN Community, we have set up&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;One VPN Tunnel per GW&lt;/STRONG&gt;, it's also a seperate VPN Community than the other tunnel.&lt;BR /&gt;The VPN Domains on both ends have been set to empty groups.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Anyone seen anything similar ?&lt;BR /&gt;Anyone can explain how these SAs even formed even without routes being in place?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 12:11:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256313#M43162</guid>
      <dc:creator>Henrik_J</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-09-01T12:11:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN Network SA no route</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256339#M43179</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have empty encryption domains on the gateways in the community and this is happening then I would suggest that this would need some VPN debugging etc to get to the bottom of it. TAC can assist with that.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 01:08:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256339#M43179</guid>
      <dc:creator>emmap</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-09-02T01:08:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN Network SA no route</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256341#M43180</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;See if the link I made about this last year helps. Im fairly familiar with aws and azure vpn tunnels, since I must have done close to 50 of them : - )&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&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>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 01:11:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256341#M43180</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-09-02T01:11:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN Network SA no route</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256394#M43186</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Also, forgot to mention, for what is worth, I would always use numbered VTIs, as I found with unnumbered ones, it usually works way better if BGP is involved through the tunnel.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:30:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256394#M43186</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-09-02T13:30:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN Network SA no route</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256395#M43187</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I had time today with the customer to investigate further.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;From what I saw from the logs, it looks like Azure was (is) trying to establish the tunnel constantly.&lt;BR /&gt;It seems that there was a misconfiguration on the Azure end stating that there some "remote networks" (on prem) behind this new VPN tunnel.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We are setting up a maintenance window to investigate this further, but what I think is happening, is that Azure is actively trying to form SAs towards these on-prem networks as they are defined as remote networks.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;While Check Point seems to gladly agree, even if there are no routes in place.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So seemingly peers can affect the SA negotiation like this.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I'll get back once we've tested this more thoroughly.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:38:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256395#M43187</guid>
      <dc:creator>Henrik_J</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-09-02T13:38:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN Network SA no route</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256396#M43188</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Ok, got it! Well, its worth trying on CP end, something like below:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;say Azure end is, as an example 10.10.10.0, you can add route in web UI to 10.10.10.0/24 using VTI as DG, just select the right interface.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:38:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Route-Based-VPN-Network-SA-no-route/m-p/256396#M43188</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-09-02T13:38:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

