<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Hypothetical routing question]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">A service provider asked me for help to connect their networks with a customers PFsense. Apparently they have several networks that needs to be reachable on customer side in order for a service to work. We have an IPSec tunnel up and running as per illustration, but they would like to make routable the other two networks as well.</p>
<p dir="auto">Spontaneously I answered that the only way to do this is probably to connect one IPSec with each subnet, but he insisted they solved this with static routes in the past. So I thought I'd ask just to see if anyone has any other ideas.</p>
<p dir="auto"><img src="http://leetcom.se/Routing.png" alt="alt text" class=" img-fluid img-markdown" /></p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/151584/hypothetical-routing-question</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 12:37:34 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/151584.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:12:08 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Hypothetical routing question on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:07:00 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/derelict">@<bdi>Derelict</bdi></a> Thanks bud, we just tested what you said and it worked beautifully. The process was a bit tricky to understand because they used Unifi on the opposite side but after letting go of preconceptions and just tried everything just popped into place.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/899138</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/899138</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Phatsta]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:07:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Hypothetical routing question on Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:50:41 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">pfSense can do IPsec in two different ways, policy-based and route-based (VTI)</p>
<p dir="auto">To accomplish that scenario using policy-based you would make these IPsec networks (phase 2 tunnels) on both sides:</p>
<p dir="auto">Site A</p>
<p dir="auto">Local Network: 172.16.186.64/26 Remote Network: 10.5.0.0/24<br />
Local Network: 172.16.203.128/28 Remote Network: 10.5.0.0/24<br />
Local Network: 172.16.212.0/26 Remote Network: 10.5.0.0/24</p>
<p dir="auto">Site B</p>
<p dir="auto">Local Network: 10.5.0.0/24 Remote Network: 172.16.186.64/26<br />
Local Network: 10.5.0.0/24 Remote Network: 172.16.203.128/28<br />
Local Network: 10.5.0.0/24 Remote Network: 172.16.212.0/26</p>
<p dir="auto">If you are already using an ESP phase 2 tunnel for the existing network, the most straightforward path would be to just add two more "Phase 2" tunnels to each side.</p>
<p dir="auto">Using a VTI tunnel would establish a /30 point-to-point over which you can route any networks you like to the other side using static routes or routing protocols.</p>
<p dir="auto">It doesn't look like the book has caught up yet (VTI is a newish feature) but this exists:</p>
<p dir="auto">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKMZ9rNQx7Y</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/898789</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/898789</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Derelict]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:50:41 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>