Subject: Re: IPsec, NAT, and Firewalling
To: Dave Burgess <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/23/2001 10:19:52
One suggestion: DO NOT run NAT on the box you use as IPsec tunnel
gateway. It is almost impossible to configure them on the same box.
Reasons are: they implement conflicting functionality (IPsec policy
is very similar to packet filter), packet filters do not really
handle tunnelled packet well, and they are specwise conflicting
>- I have a gifN route set up for the tunnel traffic (which may or may
>not be important now). The IPsec FAQ at www.netbsd.org doesn't mention
>a gif0 interface, but does demand some static routes. I've tried it
>both ways and don't see any traffic moving between.
When we say "IPsec tunnel", normally it means tunnel encapsulation
described in RFC2401. If you configure IPsec tunnel policy as
described in IPsec FAQ (VPN section), the packet look like this:
IP1 ESP IP2 payload
gif implements IPv over IPv tunnel based on RFC1933 (2893).
After gif encapsulation, packet looks like this:
IP1 IP2 payload
If you add transport mode IPsec onto IP1 it will look like this:
(as Michael Richardson's reply suggests)
IP1 ESP IP2 payload
However: since gif and IPsec tunnel implement different encapsulation
from each other, use of gif can cause interoperability problem,
especially if the other end is non-NetBSD box. It is documented in
gif(4) manpage, at the bottom.
This is the reason why we do not mention gif in IPsec FAQ. There's no
guarantee the lastter configuration interoperate with other IPsec
devices, including NetBSD boxes (we don't guarantee it). The latter
configuration is "If you know what you are doing it's fine go ahead
use gif, don't blame me even if it does not interoperate" kind of thing.
(From specification POV, I still don't really like the fact that IPsec
defines tunnel encapsulation method. IPsec can separately be defined
from tunnelling, and there are dozens of tunnelling specifications
already. But anyway, specifications are specifications, we need to