Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of the_scotsman_
the_scotsman_Flag for Australia

asked on

2 VPNs With Different Hardware (Watchguard & CISCO) on the Same Connection

We currently have a VPN to an outside location using a Watchguard Firebox (Edge X15), that gives access to the entire network.


We have a requirement to add a second VPN using 2 Cisco RV082 VPN routers. But this VPN will only allow access to an intenal subnetwork created with one of the Cisco RV082 routers.

OUTSIDE   >   WATCHGUARD   >   SERVER   >   LAN   >   VPN ROUTER   >   Subnetwork

I'm quite new to VPNs and was wondering how this second VPN can be achieved. Is there a way I can forward all of the Cisco RV082 traffic through the Firebox to the Cisco RV082.

The server is running OpenBSD, so I can use pf.conf to forward the necessary traffic also...

I was just wondering if this can be achieved without conflict of the 2 VPNs...and if so, how.

Avatar of kf4zmt

How about putting the watchguard and cisco VPN appliances in parallel:

                   WATCHGUARD    >   VLAN 1
OUTSIDE >                                     
                   VPN ROUTER       >  VLAN 2

Of course, this assumes that your ISP is supplying you with more than one IP address.  
Avatar of the_scotsman_


Thanks, but we only have one IP address from our ISP.

And if possible, I'd rather  not change the current setup with the Firebox.
I don't have any experience with Watchguard.  However, most commercial grade firewalls will allow you to create a ruleset to allow the necessary protocols and ports through to the RV082.  
Avatar of dpk_wal
The setup is:
>> OUTSIDE   >   WATCHGUARD   >   SERVER   >   LAN   >   VPN ROUTER   >   Subnetwork

Can you suggest that is your server multihomed; do you have setup as below:
OUTSIDE   [public IP]>   WATCHGUARD   [internal subnet 1]>   [internal subnet 1] SERVER [internal subnet 2]>   LAN   >  [internal subnet 2] VPN ROUTER [internal subnet 3]  > [internal subnet 3]  Subnetwork

Further is the SERVER doing NAT as well. If yes, then there is already two levels of NAT [one done by WATCHGUARD and other done by SERVER] and now you are adding third level of NAT by introducing VPN ROUTER.

Any specific reason why you cannot terminate the VPN tunnel on WATCHGUARD itself.

Please elaborate.

Thank you.
This new VPN / subnet HAS to be kept isolated from the first, and from the server if possible, so I don't think there would be a way to terminate it at the firebox and also keep it separate from the current network?

Attached an image to show the current setp (black) and desired additional vpn setup (blue).

there are two posible solution.
1. you can add a separate ISP for VPN router and a separate one for external site. can do PPTP vpn (free solution to any of the sites) if you can not afford two ISP.

please revert in case of any clarification  needed
IMO it would be much better if you terminate both VPNs on the WatchGuard, but allow for different VLANs. VLANs are separated from each other logically, since you need routing between both. If WatchGuard is not capable of it, you can insert a small managable switch which is.

Another way, but never tried that, is to first create a tunnel to the WatchGuard, which allows for using other addresses for the secondary VPN. The following is in regard to the "blue" layout above:

External VPN router > WatchGuard (tunnel 1), publicIP1.
-- That tunnel allows for use of privateIP1 which is the other blue VPN device.
External VPN router > internal VPN router (tunnel2), privateIP1
-- That tunnel allows the for use of the blue LAN.

Avatar of dpk_wal
Flag of India image

Link to home
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
How do you imagine a udp/500 forward would work on the same public IP on which the other VPN (IPSec, too) runs?
>> from the public IP of outside VPN router to inside VPN router

We can have multiple ingress policies differentiated on source/destination IP and or source/destination ports! Don't you agree ;)
Yes, of course - if that works for WatchGuard ...
Hmmm..the forwarding of the ports based on source IP sounds like it may work...I'll look into this and see how that goes.