VPN Traffic not match configured policy hitting default trust to Untrust

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements
Please sign in to see details of an important advisory in our Customer Advisories area.

VPN Traffic not match configured policy hitting default trust to Untrust

L0 Member

Need some assistance with A S2S VPN - We have configured a Similar tunnel from another site to destination 3rd party peer and it's working. The 2nd site is configured the same as the working one. What I cant figure out is the tunnel is up, both tunnel interfaces are up. The Virtual router has static routes to desti primary with metric of 10 and Sec metric of 20. The tunnel shows encaps and decaps, yet I cant ping form either the local Palo side or the other side back. I check via both the GUI Device/Troubleshooting the policy match and routing to desti all are correct. When I check traffic monitor traffic is going from trust to Untrust not Trust to the VPN_Site zone. I ran the following test also, from the cli  the test security policy is correct , just cant figure out why traffci to desti 10.252.53.x is not matching. Going to run a packet cap to see if it yields any info as to why

Here's my output: The rule ID is correct and the desti zone is correct.

"VPN_DC_to_<correct Rule>; index: 3" {
from trust;
source 10.47.4.0/24;
source-region none;
to vpn_<correct zone Name>;
destination 10.252.53.0/24;
destination-region none;
user any;
category any;
application/service 0:any/any/any/any;
action allow;
icmp-unreachable: no
terminal yes;

 

Also, encaps/decaps are incrementing 
xxxx-220-1(active)> show vpn flow name DC_to_<correct IPSEC Policy>-Primary | match bytes
encap bytes: 9860040
decap bytes: 9856584
xxxx-220-1(active)> show vpn flow name DC_to_<coorect IPSEC Policy>-Primary | match bytes
encap bytes: 9860160
decap bytes: 9856704

Here's the monitor showing it hitting the wrong rule trust to untrust

bobany89_0-1701713992772.png

 

1 accepted solution

Accepted Solutions

L0 Member

I have resolved this issue.

I found there was a PBF rule that was causing the traffic to route out the ISP next hop as opposed to the tunnel interfaces I set up. I added two PBF rules to send the traffic to the primary tunnel interface and a second to the Secondary tunnel interface. Used monitoring of next hop Sonicwall Tunnel interface IP's and all is ok. Both tunnels work fine - tested simulating a failure of primary from remote site of PA. 

View solution in original post

1 REPLY 1

L0 Member

I have resolved this issue.

I found there was a PBF rule that was causing the traffic to route out the ISP next hop as opposed to the tunnel interfaces I set up. I added two PBF rules to send the traffic to the primary tunnel interface and a second to the Secondary tunnel interface. Used monitoring of next hop Sonicwall Tunnel interface IP's and all is ok. Both tunnels work fine - tested simulating a failure of primary from remote site of PA. 

  • 1 accepted solution
  • 410 Views
  • 1 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!