Enhanced Security Measures in Place:   To ensure a safer experience, we’ve implemented additional, temporary security measures for all users.

Palo Alto device is wrongly directing the traffic . DUAL ISP IPSEC VPN issue

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Palo Alto device is wrongly directing the traffic . DUAL ISP IPSEC VPN issue

L1 Bithead

we have two dynamic ISP in single VR with ECMP and we have setup dual IPSEC VPN tunnels towards single public IP to other paloalto . our issue that  PA wrongly forwarding traffic , ISP 2 is using MAC address of ISP1 when initiating VPN traffic to public ip address of second FW. 

 

mhm_ameen_1-1662458236401.png

 

 

 

 

Moreover check the source MAC address ! 

 

 show interface ethernet1/3 [ ISP1]

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: ethernet1/3, ID: 18

 

MAC address:

  Port MAC address 00:1b:17:00:01:12

Operation mode: layer3

Interface IP address: 172.20.2.250/24

 

 show interface ethernet1/2 [ ISP2]

 

MAC address:

  Port MAC address 00:1b:17:00:01:11

Operation mode: layer3

Interface IP address: 172.20.3.250/24

 

4 REPLIES 4

Cyber Elite
Cyber Elite

@mhm_ameen,

Are you forcing symmetric return? 

Yes enabled and also enable strict source path as well same even trying with 2 VR and PBF same issue we are in 10.1.6 which even we upgraded to from 10.1.5

Cyber Elite
Cyber Elite

@mhm_ameen,

Interesting. At least from my end, I would open a ticket so that TAC can review your actual configuration and confirm if something regarding routing is simply setup incorrectly, or if you're running into some undocumented bug. I'm guessing it's not a bug due to this being a regular setup, but maybe it's only present when select features are enabled or something like that. 

L2 Linker

hello @mhm_ameen, have you got to the bottom of this? Looking at it from 10.2.x perspective I see that 'strict source path' is working fine on it - VPN traffic is tied to correct physical interfaces, but if you have path monitoring for static route you use as default for ISP1 for example and it will fail and be removed from routing table, then you might expect Palo to initiate VPN1 over different interface. 

  • 1921 Views
  • 4 replies
  • 0 Likes
Like what you see?

Show your appreciation!

Click Like if a post is helpful to you or if you just want to show your support.

Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.

The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!

These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!

The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!