Website A wants IPsec with website B.
Website A networks 192.168.20.0/24 and 192.168.50.0/24 want to succeed in Website B community 192.168.1.0/24. And the opposite approach round as properly.
The issue is that Website A has a community 192.168.1.0/24 on its LAN interface, and a path to it as properly.
I can solely modify Website A configuration. I’ve to by some means apply NAT on website B 192.168.1.0/24, in order that computer systems on website A use one-to-one NAT 192.168.250.0/24 to succeed in distant 192.168.1.0/24. 192.168.250.1 is used to entry 192.168.1.1 and and so on. Simply earlier than the visitors is shipped, the vacation spot NAT is carried out from 192.168.250.1 to 192.168.1.1, and so on… And when visitors is acquired, supply NAT is used to translate 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.250.1, and so on…
My first thought was to implement it as follows:
config firewall vip
edit "SiteB_NAT"
set extip 192.168.250.0-192.168.250.255
set mappedip "192.168.1.0-192.168.1.255"
set extintf "any"
subsequent
finish
config firewall ippool
edit "SNAT_SiteB"
set kind one-to-one
set startip 192.168.250.0
set endip 192.168.250.255
subsequent
finish
finish
config firewall coverage
edit 53
set identify "To_SiteB"
set srcintf "BNET_L2" "VLAN50"
set dstintf "IPSec_VGGN"
set motion settle for
set srcaddr "192.168.20.0/24" "192.168.50.0/24"
set dstaddr "SiteB_NAT"
set schedule "at all times"
set service "ALL"
set logtraffic all
subsequent
finish
config firewall coverage
edit 55
set identify "From_VGGN"
set srcintf "IPSec_VGGN"
set dstintf "BNET_L2" "VLAN50"
set motion settle for
set srcaddr "192.168.1.0/24"
set dstaddr "192.168.20.0/24" "192.168.50.0/24"
set schedule "at all times"
set service "ALL"
set logtraffic all
set nat allow
set ippool allow
set poolname "SNAT_SiteB"
set feedback "From_VGGN"
subsequent
finish
However then there’s a drawback, Fortigate first applies coverage, then routing. So it might nonetheless search for a path to 192.168.1.0/24, and it might ahead it to LAN interface, proper?
Easy methods to overcome this, possibly by some means it is potential to make a route just for coverage 53?
Or possibly there’s a totally different, higher resolution for this drawback (I can not modify subnet on SiteB)?