Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Is there a way to specify ipsec tunnel routes?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPsec
    5 Posts 3 Posters 766 Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • T
      tstok
      last edited by

      I am new to PFSense, and to IPSec on unix/linux in general.
      I have a Palo Alto system on my side, and a PFSense syste, on the remote side.
      We have set up IPSec and phase1/phase2 comes up and works.

      I am used to in firewall systems to be able to specify routes with tunnel targets, I will typically use a broad Phase 2 tunnel, e.g. 10.99.0.0/16 as an all encompassing, but i do not necessarily want the tunnel specification to equal routing.

      On the pfsense it appears that the phase2 tunnels equals routing - is that correct?
      If so, is there a way to change that, switch to explicit routing?

      If not possible to change - is it possible to create static routes that make exceptions to the auto-tunnel-routing?
      (I know i can test this, but the system is remote and i rather have an idea before i manage to kill my connection to it).

      one use scenario is i need to tunnel a range of public IP's, but in the middle of that range is the actual IP which is the peer for this tunnel, so obviously i cant tunnel that traffic.

      V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • V
        viragomann @tstok
        last edited by

        @tstok
        I think, you're looking for Routed IPsec (VTI).

        T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • T
          tstok @viragomann
          last edited by

          @viragomann ah yes thank you - that does look by description like it is what i want - thank you!

          As a first look i wasnt able to configure it properly on the tunnel with a subnet, but i will spend some digging and rtfm before i ask more about it

          T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            tstok @tstok
            last edited by

            so it turns out this could solve the issue - but it is annoying that now it needs a pair of IP's for routing for each tunnel... that seems like a waste

            Would be so much better if i could have tunnels defined like in ipv4 mode, the add routes with destination network and target "send to ike interface"

            i guess i just have to create 60 or so standard ipv4 tunnels instead to cover all the bits and pieces of the subnets to hit and not hit.

            dotdashD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • dotdashD
              dotdash @tstok
              last edited by

              @tstok
              I'm possibly not following what you're trying to do, but the tunnel IPs are just arbitrary point to point numbers. You can then route through the point to point vti interface. I can't see any reason why you'd have to create 60 tunnels.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • First post
                Last post
              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.