cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Who rated this post

Tobias_Moritz
Advisor

I want repeat what was already written elsewhere is this community:
That design decision on how CP calculuates its own encryption domain for IKE phase 2 handshakes (IPsec SA) is just a mess.

It was always a mess (just remember that old implied supernet calculation "feature") and as this sk shows, it is still a mess after the improvement for R80.40 shown here was introduced.

When comparing to competitors, it is really hard to do 3rd party VPNs with this design. Not all 3rd parties are cooperative and agree to a subnet which works for you on your CP side.

You still have to hack vpn.def file to get simple thinks working like showing 10.0.0.0/24 to one 3rd party peer and 10.0.0.0/16 to another.

I guess many other people who have to handle a large amount of 3rd party Site-to-Site-VPNs on a CP gateway would agree with me, that CP R&D really should think this over again.

It should not be hard for customers, to specify exactly which encryption domains a CP gateways offers during IKE phase 2.

Our customers and we were happy when we saw the improvent for R80.40 beeing anounced 2019 (or early 2020), but the limitation now shown in the sk was a sad surprise.

(2)
Who rated this post