This is a discussion on IPSEC VPN ISAKMPD Conflicting Address Ranges within the mailing.openbsd.tech forums, part of the OpenBSD category; --> I really hope an IPSEC guru can enlighten me on the following.. Using: Linux Kernel 2.6.4 using kernel level ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| I really hope an IPSEC guru can enlighten me on the following.. Using: Linux Kernel 2.6.4 using kernel level ipsec ISAKMPD as the IKE daemon Small office routers running on NET A & B Topology as follows: Network A Network B 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.0.0/24 --- --- router with public IP router with public IP --- --- | | | | | | | dA' NET | ----------------------------------------- | | | --- router with public IP --- | Network C 10.0.0.0/25 Situation. The router on network C is running linux kernel 2.6.4 with ipsec and ISAKMPD for IKE. This box is used as a VPN concentrator. The problem, illustrated in the diagram is fairly apparent - Both networks A and B have the same address range, and for reasons beyond my control I cannot re-number either. Both tunnels also need to be on simultaneously. I have googled till exaustion with no return. The closest I get to an example is a double NAT solution, that doesn't really map across. I was thinking that a solution could be to translate the Network A and B subnets to unique networks. using POSTROUTING and PREROUTING iptable chains. The problem is that ipsec on 2.6 does create user level interfaces (I can't see them) so I can't use iptables to translate and then route via the ipsec interface. 2.6 seems to attach the tunnel directly to the machine, which you then bind to any local interface. I'm all out of ideas. HELP!!! Any comments suggestions or alternatives solutions welcome.... Thanks Jansen |
| ||||
| Jansen wrote: > I really hope an IPSEC guru can enlighten me on the following.. > > Using: > > Linux Kernel 2.6.4 using kernel level ipsec > ISAKMPD as the IKE daemon > Small office routers running on NET A & B > > > Topology as follows: > > > Network A Network B > 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.0.0/24 > --- --- > router with public IP router with public IP > --- --- > | | > | | > | | > | dA' NET | > ----------------------------------------- > | > | > | > --- > router with public IP > --- > | > Network C > 10.0.0.0/25 > > > Situation. > > The router on network C is running linux kernel 2.6.4 with ipsec and > ISAKMPD for IKE. This box is used as a VPN concentrator. The problem, > illustrated in the diagram is fairly apparent - Both networks A and B > have the same address range, and for reasons beyond my control I > cannot re-number either. Both tunnels also need to be on > simultaneously. I have googled till exaustion with no return. The > closest I get to an example is a double NAT solution, that doesn't > really map across. I was thinking that a solution could be to > translate the Network A and B subnets to unique networks. using > POSTROUTING and PREROUTING iptable chains. The problem is that ipsec > on 2.6 does create user level interfaces (I can't see them) so I can't > use iptables to translate and then route via the ipsec interface. > > 2.6 seems to attach the tunnel directly to the machine, which you then > bind to any local interface. > > I'm all out of ideas. HELP!!! > > > Any comments suggestions or alternatives solutions welcome.... > Thanks > > Jansen unless netA and B are underused enough to have unique host on each segment, ie: 192.168.0.51 only on netA, in which case you can assign static routes on the netC router, I believe your going to have to nat netA or B at the respective gateway. put a case together on time and maintenance to make this work, you just might make the 'reasons beyond my control' to be insignificant compared to the benefit. -riddler |