One internal network, VPN, 2 PIX

Good morning all,
I have an existing network (let's call it Corporate), behind a PIX 506. The
internal IP addressing is 192.168.200.0.
Here's what I want to do:
Add a second PIX (501) to handle VPN client sessions to the "Corp" network.
This is all that this device will do.
How should I go about setting this up? Do I assign it an internal address
in the same subnet? I've tried that and I'm able to connect remotely, but
all I can ping is the internal interface on the PIX that I'm VPN'ing in to.
Do I need to add ACL's into the Corp PIX to allow the VPN traffic (I already
have them in the 501 VPN Pix)
I've got the clients being assigned IP addresses in the 10.99.1.0-25 range,
and split tunneling IS working.
Do I have to add a "route inside" statement, or something like that?
Thanks,
Mike
Reply to
Mike W.
Loading thread data ...
Is there a particular reason to use a seperate device instead of putting the VPN onto the 506 itself? For example, for policy reasons, or because the 506 is the "production" firewall and you can't clear enough testing time? Or is there a need for the VPN clients to be able to access resources "outside" the 506 by connecting to the 501?
If you are able to connect far enough to ping the inside interface of the PIX 501, then the 506 already has enough pinholes to allow the VPN traffic you want.
The clue that I see is that you are able to ping the PIX 501 *inside* interface through the VPN. You can normally only ping the "closest" PIX interface, which would be the "outside" interface. The only exception to this rule is if you apply a crypto map to the inside interface and mark the inside as the "management interface" -- but if you do that, then that tunnel cannot be used to access anything other than the PIX itself (i.e., to "manage" the PIX.)
But to point out the obvious on the off-chance that you happened to overlook it:
When the VPN clients with their 10.99.1.* IPs attempt to contact the 192.168.200.* inside hosts, the inside hosts are going to reply, and the 10.99.1.* packets are going to be routed to the next hop that those inside hosts know about. Unless you reconfigured those hosts, or went to a bunch of trouble with OSPF, that next hop would be the 506. The 506 doesn't know anything special about 10.99.1.* destinations, so it will send the packets outside (e.g., UDP), or block them (if you have the standard denies to RFC 1918 private addresses), or drop them (e.g. TCP packets would be unexpected SYN ACK).
In order to avoid this and yet not have to reconfigure your 506, you have to put the 501 outside of the 506 and open appropriate holes for the decapsulated packets from the 501; or you need to have the 501 NAT the *source* 10.99.1.* IPs into *source* 192.168.200.* IPs (and let the 501 proxy-arp those IPs so the interior hosts send responses to the 501); or you need to add an interior router and use that as the gateway for your internal hosts.
For incoming packets, the PIX 501 normally [de-] NAT's *destinations* leaving the source IPs alone -- this is the general rule when going from a lower security interface to a higher security interface. You can configure it to NAT incoming *source* IPs, but it gets a bit ugly to configure.
What I did in a similar situation was to connect up the interior PIX *backwards*. The "inside" interface is the one I applied the crypto map to, and which receives the VPN traffic; it was assigned a public IP on a small subnet fragment, and the exterior PIX was set to allow all IPSec traffic through to that public IP. The "outside" interface of the interior PIX was then put into an IP range that the main LAN could reach without going through the exterior firewall; in my case, it was another of our subnets (we have an interior router), but in your case it would be 192.168.200.* . Appropriate nat and static's were set up.
The VPN traffic comes in to the exterior firewall, which passes it through unchanged to the interior PIX *
inside* interface; an interior router really helps get it there, but you could use a "logical interface" (801.Q VLAN) on the 506 to the same effect. The interior PIX decapsulates the traffic, and then since it sees that the traffic is destined for a lower-security interface (the "outside" of the interior PIX), it uses standard nat/static logic to change the -source- IP into the outside IP range. The decapsulated packets that reach the interior hosts have the altered source IPs.
When the interior hosts reply, they do so to the altered IPs, which you have arranged to be in the same IP range as those interior hosts, so the interior hosts arp for the destination directly instead of sending the packet off to the gateway. The interior PIX proxy-arps those IPs on its outside interface, so it receives the replies on its outside interface. The interior PIX sees that it has an active translation for that dataflow, and it sees the packet as being one going from a lower security interface to a higher security interface, so it de-NATs the -destination- IP... changing it back to the IP of the VPN client. The PIX then notices that there is an active VPN for the client IP, so it encapsulates the traffic and sends it out to the appropriate peer address, using the interior PIX inside interface to do so. The exterior PIX sees these encapsulated packets, and sees that the destination is outside the exterior PIX, so it lets the encapsulated packets head out towards the appropriate peer public IP.
To get this to work can require an "ip route inside" statement or three -- if you miss those, then you get the symptoms that Phase 1 negotiations complete, but Phase 2 negotiations generate "no route to host" log messages.
This arrangement might seem a bit strange, but it results in a much cleaner interior PIX configuration than you would have if you tried to do NAT'ing of the *source* IPs on packets travelling towards the inside interface.
Reply to
Walter Roberson

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.