<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Multiple overlapping IP customers behind IPSEC tunnels in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193156#M57940</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;What about if I put each customer into a separate Virtual System and NAT them in their vsys. Would that work too ? I thought about this yesterday and my gut feeling is it should work.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 11:11:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>kefiras</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-12-27T11:11:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Multiple overlapping IP customers behind IPSEC tunnels</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193067#M57932</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two customers with the same IP subnet, both behind separate IPSEC tunnels to my London hub (image attached, apologize for poor quality). Is it possible they can connect to my hub without any NAT on their side ?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've done a hack I don't like it works. By enabling ECMP and 'symmetric return' option the traffic is flowing from both customers Ireland and Frankfurt without problems - but I don't like it.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Second question applies to the traffic in opposite direction - from my hub to the clients. Is there any option to enable the traffic without involving the customer ? I assume there is not much we can do in this case - the customer has to do proper NATs their side.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks a lot for replies !&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="IMG_6826.JPG" style="width: 800px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/13091i012B1F6DF9887520/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="IMG_6826.JPG" alt="IMG_6826.JPG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2017 22:21:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193067#M57932</guid>
      <dc:creator>kefiras</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-26T22:21:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple overlapping IP customers behind IPSEC tunnels</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193155#M57939</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You are correct, the real solution to this will be NAT on the remote side of the IPSEC tunnel.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 11:05:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193155#M57939</guid>
      <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-27T11:05:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple overlapping IP customers behind IPSEC tunnels</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193156#M57940</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;What about if I put each customer into a separate Virtual System and NAT them in their vsys. Would that work too ? I thought about this yesterday and my gut feeling is it should work.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 11:11:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193156#M57940</guid>
      <dc:creator>kefiras</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-27T11:11:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple overlapping IP customers behind IPSEC tunnels</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193373#M57978</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Splitting them up that way will also work since you are logically splitting up your PAN. However here is a good document about the original question.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/10/cloud-services/globalprotect-cloud-service-gsg/gpcs-quick-configs/remote-network-locations-with-overlapping-subnets" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/10/cloud-services/globalprotect-cloud-service-gsg/gpcs-quick-configs/remote-network-locations-with-overlapping-subnets&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:55:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multiple-overlapping-ip-customers-behind-ipsec-tunnels/m-p/193373#M57978</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-28T22:55:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

