Originally, WANs were mostly defined by specific layer 1/2 protocols (Frame Relay, HDLC, SONET, etc) that they used, but Ethernet has taken over, and the others are rapidly fading into history. The term "WAN" now generally describes a network that covers some larger geographical area than a LAN. Sounds vague? It is.
Some WANs, like the Internet are public,...
Wan links are provided by service providers wan links are point to point link link a physical cable is connected between both end points .consider to be highly secure no other intruder can access this links it's private lieased link
Where as vpn tunnel is build between two different organisation on different locations. Data is encrypted and forward towards ...
Your options are:
The IP SLA
Always be sending something over the tunnel from host/server to host/server to keep the tunnel up (effectively just another form of an IP SLA)
Configure the lifetimes on BOTH sides (changing only one side will cause other issues).
Edit (in response to how to apply the group-policy):
tunnel-group 74.201.x.x general-attributes
Either one will work, since the line between router and firewall is sometimes blurry. You would probably choose one or the other based on the capabilities of the devices.
If you went with option A, presumably the router also has some "firewall functionality" to protect your servers. If not, you will still need a firewall.
If your data is not ...
Proxy-ID is an IKE option for phase 2 of IPsec. The end points either use the source/destination IP addresses or a proxy-ID for identification (especially when one side has a dynamic address). Both sides need to agree on the parameters.
Traceroute is not a protocol. It is an application that uses ICMP (Windows) or UDP (*nix) packets with short TTL values. It relies on ICMP error messages to determine the hops.
VPN tunnels act as a single hop, so yes using the tunnel will affect your traceroute results.
Many things to look at here...
Your crypto map amazon_lon_map does nothing, because it is not bound to an interface. Instead, all your outside-in crypto is handled by crypto map MAP_OUTSIDE (as it has a corresponding crypto map MAP_OUTSIDE interface outside)
You have no access-group statements, so your access-list outside_acl and access-list ...
I had that issue too, creating a rule for the object and disabling DPI on it definitely worked for me.
I also noticed that the issue is specifically mentioned as a resolved issue in the latest firmware release 18.104.22.168-52n.
RPC is an application-layer protocol, whether encrypted or not.
OSI's session layer isn't (practically) used in real life, it's very much a theoretical construct only. In any case, the session layer is intermediate between transport and application layers.
You might somewhat call SSL/TLS a "session-layer" protocol, but RPC is the application riding on top -...
Site B is missing the route for 192.168.198.0/24 pointing into the tunnel. Without it, the packet leaks out to WAN.
You need to either set up a static route or configure OSPF between the firewalls (requires 'always-on' VPN).
I suggest you read this link to see how to properly build a tunnel on an ASA and then see if you have any problems.
In general, you need 2 ACLs (when dealing with tunnels): One ACL for letting the traffic enter (and pass through) the ASA, and another ACL for defining the interesting traffic. It looks like you have the interesting traffic ACL but are maybe ...
The VPN you've linked to bridges between the tunnel ends. Accordingly, all locations form a single link-layer segment and a single IP subnet. ARP requests are actually broadcast throughout the VPN.
Since such a VPN setup sends all kinds of non-essential traffic across the tunnels it is most often considered suboptimal. Also, traffic considered as "local" ...
It's possible, but first you need static IP addresses. You can ask your ISPs to give you static addresses (for a fee, of course).
The most uncertain thing to me is whether I can use the UDM's UniFi
controller through the tunnel...
Once you establish the tunnels, they essentially become transparent to the devices. Baring latency problems, your controllers ...
The outside interface, but you need to be very careful with doing that, especially if you're setting the DF (don't fragment) bit rather than allowing fragmentation. If you set the DF bit and then send larger packets than the MTU allows for, you're gonna drop packets and cause issues. You will either need to make sure you're clearing the DF bit (to allow ...
Forget L2 VPN, it doesn't scale. Use routed/L3 VPN.
Create a global addressing plan, so customer networks are all uniquely addressed. Allow space for future growth. If there's ambiguity, resolve it by renumbering. This actually spares you a great deal of pain later on.
You will need a VPN gateway at each location, IPsec preferred.
Connect all customers per ...
After getting nowhere with IKEv2, I went back to basics and tried an IKEv1 tunnel. The same thing happened: both sides showed the tunnel as up, but the ASA would not return any encrypted bytes.
So, it's not much of an answer, but all that was needed was a reboot of the ASA and this started working perfectly.
Based on your inputs, it appears that the issue is on the remote end unless you didn't make any changes on your earlier working setup.
As the packet encaps are happening at your side and no decaps on the remote side, these are the below things to consider.
Check whether you have routes to reach the remote subnet/IP over the internet.
Check for the NAT ...
You can "load balance" between the DSL and 4G links between the sites simply by adjusting the routing metric so that both paths have equal cost. The routers will divide connections between the two paths. Note that a single connection will always use one link, so no single connection can use more than one link's bandwidth.
"Bonding" the links together ...
I recommend that you examine the crypto acl:s outside_cryptomap_4 in FW A and outside_cryptomap in FW B. They must be identical but mirrored.
The real content of the acl:s are hidden behind your usage of objects.
Do like this:
Issue the command "show access-list outside_cryptomap_4" on FW A and "show access-list outside_cryptomap" in FW B. (Yes, show ...
Here's a 'thumbnail' sketch of how to do it provided you have SRX's on both ends:
The basic idea is that you use a 'hostname' in the IKE gateway setup on both sides. The SRX with the dynamic IP will establish IKE using the hostname.
According to the debugs, the traffic isn't passing through the Fortinet firewall. They show some traffic sending out to 22.214.171.124 and receiving in to 10.177.1.x (your inside interface!), but nothing from the remote endpoint 90.90.x.x. These couple of addresses seem very odd and I wonder if the debug is even from the current ASA.
I think you need to get ...
I did open a ticket with Microsoft, and while troubleshooting on the Azure side, the support engineer spotted that I had not configured the pfs group on the router side.
I was actually aware of that, I had configured the router so as I understood that was recommended by Microsoft (e.g. see step 7 on the "Troubleshooting: Azure Site-to-Site VPN disconnects ...
I found a solution:
gateway# show crypto isa
There are no IKEv1 SAs
Session-id:*****, Status:UP-ACTIVE, IKE count:1, CHILD count:1
Tunnel-id Local Remote Status Role
********** 80.x.w.y/500 40.a.b.c/500 ...