<?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 IPSec Tunnel Question in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipsec-tunnel-question/m-p/222599#M64016</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a IPSec tunnel up where the Peer IP is the same as the Remote IP (Proxy ID - Remote).&amp;nbsp; The Tunnel is up, but traffic destined for that Remote IP isn't traversing the tunnel.&amp;nbsp; Typically, there is a Private IP as the Remote and a static route could then be set in Virtual Router to send the traffic back across the tunnel.&amp;nbsp; I'm sure I'm not the first this has happend to, but I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this.&amp;nbsp; Anyone out here know how to get traffic back across this tunnel?&amp;nbsp; Both phases of the tunnel is established.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:58:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Brad.Herbert</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-07-17T19:58:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IPSec Tunnel Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipsec-tunnel-question/m-p/222599#M64016</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a IPSec tunnel up where the Peer IP is the same as the Remote IP (Proxy ID - Remote).&amp;nbsp; The Tunnel is up, but traffic destined for that Remote IP isn't traversing the tunnel.&amp;nbsp; Typically, there is a Private IP as the Remote and a static route could then be set in Virtual Router to send the traffic back across the tunnel.&amp;nbsp; I'm sure I'm not the first this has happend to, but I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this.&amp;nbsp; Anyone out here know how to get traffic back across this tunnel?&amp;nbsp; Both phases of the tunnel is established.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:58:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipsec-tunnel-question/m-p/222599#M64016</guid>
      <dc:creator>Brad.Herbert</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-17T19:58:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IPSec Tunnel Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipsec-tunnel-question/m-p/222632#M64023</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/80673"&gt;@Brad.Herbert&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I see two possibilities on how to solve this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Create a policy based forwarding rule so that ypur internal network will be able to reach this public IP over the tunnel instead of directly over the internet&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Create a separate virtual router where you add your tunnel interface (and depending on the use of the firewall also your internal interface). In this seperate virtual router you could then configure a route for this public IP with the tunnelinterface as destinationinterface without affecting the IPSec traffic that the firewall needs to be able to send directly over the internetinterface.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;I hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Remo&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:26:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipsec-tunnel-question/m-p/222632#M64023</guid>
      <dc:creator>Remo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-17T22:26:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

