<?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[IPSEC passthrough problem]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Hi all</p>
<p dir="auto">We tried the following setup in our lab:</p>
<p dir="auto">[Site A]==[MS ISA Server Backend Firewall]==[pfSense Frontend Firewall]–PUBLIC--[MS ISA Server Firewall]==[Site B]</p>
<p dir="auto">We then tried to span an L2TP/IPSEC VPN between the two ISA Firewalls.</p>
<p dir="auto">-It works if Site A establishes the VPN.<br />
-It works both ways without the pfSense Firewall in between.</p>
<p dir="auto">-It does not work if Site B establishes the VPN through pfSense  &gt;:(</p>
<p dir="auto">I think all Port-Forwarding and Firewall rules are present on the pfSense. pfSense forwards the initial (Main Mode) IKE Packets from Site B on Port 500 to the Backend ISA Firewall. But then the IKE negotiation times out.</p>
<p dir="auto">Any suggestions would be welcome  :)</p>
<p dir="auto">By the way pfSense is a great product. Thanks to the team!</p>
<p dir="auto">Best Regards</p>
<p dir="auto">Dave</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/5057/ipsec-passthrough-problem</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 19:50:56 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/5057.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:49:37 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:35:18 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I can confirm that logging UDP traffic works now with Beta 2  ;D</p>
<p dir="auto">Will test the other problem soon.</p>
<p dir="auto">Greets</p>
<p dir="auto">Dave</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157582</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157582</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave2007]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:35:18 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:17:58 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<ol>
<li>
<p dir="auto">I will try 1.2b2 during the next couple of days. Thanks for the info.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">According to several MS articles Windows should auto-detect if NAT-T is needed for the IPsec connection. At least with pfSense in between it does not. But I don't know whether this is an MS issue, a pfSense issue or simply a false information. It does not matter to me, because it works if I force Windows to use NAT-T as mentioned.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">To illustrate the problem with OPT1:</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p dir="auto">With the following setup an L2TP/IPsec VPN connection can be initiated from Site B (Interface in curly brackets):</p>
<p dir="auto">[Site A]==[MS ISA Firewall]==[pfSense Firewall]<strong>{WAN}</strong>–PUBLIC--[MS ISA Firewall]==[Site B]</p>
<p dir="auto">With the following setup the same connection <em>can not</em> be initiated from Site B (Interface in curly brackets):</p>
<p dir="auto">[Site A]==[MS ISA Firewall]==[pfSense Firewall]<strong>{OPT1}</strong>–PUBLIC--[MS ISA Firewall]==[Site B]</p>
<p dir="auto">The problem is reproducible (I tried several times both configurations). The rules are exactly the same in both configurations, I copied them via the pfSense Web-Interface.</p>
<p dir="auto">I hope this makes things clearer :) Thanks for your kind help.</p>
<p dir="auto">Dave</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157249</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157249</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave2007]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:17:58 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:26:00 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Upgrade to 1.2b2 first. Log issues are fixed (lot of UDP traffic was displayed as TCP).</p>
<p dir="auto">Windows (or any VPN device, for that matter) does not automatically detect NAT, that's not possible.</p>
<p dir="auto">What do you mean by routing it through OPT1 instead of WAN? Outbound from ISA on OPT1? Do you have the appropriate rules on OPT1?</p>
<p dir="auto">This is a very simple setup, definitely not any bugs in 1.2b2 in this area.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157232</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157232</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[cmb]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:26:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:40:31 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">New results:</p>
<p dir="auto">I used the AssumeUDPEncapsulationContextOnSendRule=2 registry setting from Windows XP on the ISA Server of Site B (although it is a Win2003 not an XP machine).</p>
<p dir="auto">Now it does work if I route the traffic through the WAN interface of pfSense  :)</p>
<p dir="auto">It seems that Win2003 does not auto-detect pfSense as a NAT device so must be forced to use NAT-T via that registry setting.</p>
<p dir="auto"><em>But</em>, it still does not work if I route the traffic through the OPT1 interface of pfSense instead of the WAN interface.  :(<br />
Is this intentional or a bug that those interfaces are handled differently by pfSense?</p>
<p dir="auto">I also noticed in the firewall logs of pfSense that although I used UDP ports 500 and 4500 in the NAT and Firewall rules the traffic gets forwarded by pfSense but is identified as TCP ports 500 and 4500  ???</p>
<p dir="auto">Dave</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157033</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157033</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave2007]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:40:31 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:14:06 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Thanks. Unfortunately that did not work either.</p>
<p dir="auto">Dave</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157021</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157021</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave2007]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:14:06 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:06:48 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Turn on advanced outbound NAT and then edit the LAN entry.  Check static-port.  Save.</p>
<p dir="auto">Test again, please.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157018</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157018</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[sullrich]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:06:48 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:04:25 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Thanks. We tried the last three snapshots. Currently I am testing with "1.2-BETA-1-TESTING-SNAPSHOT-06-29-2007".</p>
<p dir="auto">I tried with Advanced Outbound NAT and with Automatic Outbound NAT.</p>
<p dir="auto">It did not work with any version  :(</p>
<p dir="auto">Dave</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157017</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157017</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave2007]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:04:25 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPSEC passthrough problem on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:57:35 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Try a recent snapshot @ snapshots.pfsense.com / FreeBSD6 / RELENG_1_2</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/157016</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/157016</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[sullrich]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:57:35 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>