GTuddenham
asked on
Allowing PTPP conntion OUT through Firebox.
Hello All,
I have been reading through about allowing PTPP through Firebox X500. However, there are centred around those who have users wanting to VPN IN which we already have set up through our main ISP for our staff, what we have is two client who rent out two of our office spaces and I have them set up to go through our *secondary* ISP that has a Firebox X500 on it.
What they use for thier services is they VPN into thier system, then remote desktop. Now, going straight through the router the VPN is fines, but throuh the Firebox get Error 721 which says the computer is not responding because GRE isn't enbaled? However in the Policy Manager I have PTPP Service set up for both ports 1723 and IP 47 but it still doesn't work?
I have tried NATs but I don't see how they'd help for trying to connect OUT to a VPN... Why won't my Firebox just pass the traffic through? Am I forgetting something?
I have been reading through about allowing PTPP through Firebox X500. However, there are centred around those who have users wanting to VPN IN which we already have set up through our main ISP for our staff, what we have is two client who rent out two of our office spaces and I have them set up to go through our *secondary* ISP that has a Firebox X500 on it.
What they use for thier services is they VPN into thier system, then remote desktop. Now, going straight through the router the VPN is fines, but throuh the Firebox get Error 721 which says the computer is not responding because GRE isn't enbaled? However in the Policy Manager I have PTPP Service set up for both ports 1723 and IP 47 but it still doesn't work?
I have tried NATs but I don't see how they'd help for trying to connect OUT to a VPN... Why won't my Firebox just pass the traffic through? Am I forgetting something?
ASKER
Yes, both going to the same VPN Server.
255.255.255.0, same as me, I'm accessing EE through this gateway that im trying to allow PPTP through. That's what I thought was strange as well, because Outgoing was allowed on all TCP/UDP.
06/23/08 12:27 kernel: ip_fw_masq_gre(): Outbound GRE to 210.10.49.153 has no masq table entry.
That's what the traffic monitor comes up with.
255.255.255.0, same as me, I'm accessing EE through this gateway that im trying to allow PPTP through. That's what I thought was strange as well, because Outgoing was allowed on all TCP/UDP.
06/23/08 12:27 kernel: ip_fw_masq_gre(): Outbound GRE to 210.10.49.153 has no masq table entry.
That's what the traffic monitor comes up with.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks for that. Unfortunly we dont have any public IPs on that gateway, so i'll have to look into organising it through our other gateway. Which we just have to say what we want done and they make the changes, but opens up our firewall really just for two clients, Thanks for all your help!
Hi
I know this thread is waaaayyyy old, but i have managed to get this working without using secondary IPs. It is because the firebox is set to be a PPTP server itself and there fore binding GRE to itself.
To resolve this you must disable the FB for remote users by clearing the "Activate Remote User" under Network --> Remote User --> PPTP (tab), once this is done (and FB rebooted) PPTP out should work fine, obviously this is no good if you want to use the FB as a PPTP server!!
Hope this helps some people...
I know this thread is waaaayyyy old, but i have managed to get this working without using secondary IPs. It is because the firebox is set to be a PPTP server itself and there fore binding GRE to itself.
To resolve this you must disable the FB for remote users by clearing the "Activate Remote User" under Network --> Remote User --> PPTP (tab), once this is done (and FB rebooted) PPTP out should work fine, obviously this is no good if you want to use the FB as a PPTP server!!
Hope this helps some people...
I know this is ancient history now but I have a twist to this. I am experiencing the same problem with my FB x500 in that I can't create a pptp connection to a remove vpn server -- but only when the client is a Linux machine. There's no problem connecting to the remote server from a Windows client. That tells me that having the FB also configured as a vpn server for incoming connections is not the problem, and it is apparently not necessary to do 1-1 NAT for the Windows client with a dedicated public IP address. I have confirmed that the Linux client can connect to the remote server if it's not behind the FB. (The linux client (CentOS 5.8) is a VM on my laptop using VMware Wkstn 9 and the pptp client works fine when it's behind a different firewall.) So the lethal combination appears to be the Linux client + the FB.
If anyone has any further insights into this I'd really appreciate hearing them. I'd prefer to not have to replace the FB since it's working well otherwise.
Thanks!
If anyone has any further insights into this I'd really appreciate hearing them. I'd prefer to not have to replace the FB since it's working well otherwise.
Thanks!
I am having the same issue on a Windows 7 machine trying to connect to an external VPN using PPTP. Activate Remote User is not enabled. Receive the following message in the log:
[date time] kernel: ip_fw_masq_gre(): Outbound GRE to [ipaddress] has no masq table entry. This is on a FB 700.
[date time] kernel: ip_fw_masq_gre(): Outbound GRE to [ipaddress] has no masq table entry. This is on a FB 700.
Do you get any logs in the firebox traffic monitor when they try connecting to VPN from behind WG.
Please update.
Thank you.