Why no implicit route for L2L IPSec tunnel traffic?
In a hub-and-spoke IPSec environment, it's not hard to set up routing from spoke to hub.
But on the hub end of a tunnel, where lives the gateway of last resort for traffic from the spoke, it seems almost counter-intuitive that the crypto ACL and peer statements don't implicitly create a route for traffic from the hub into the tunnel to the far end (spoke). It could always be overridden with a static if necessary.
There's probably a good reason for this, but I can't think of it. Or am I the only person who thinks it odd...or perhaps a feature opportunity?
Table of ContentsIntroductionVersion HistoryPossible Future
UpdatesDocuments PurposeNAT Operation in ASA 8.3+ SectionsRule Types
Network Object NATTwice NAT / Manual NATRule Types used per SectionNAT
Types used with Twice NAT / Manual NAT and Network Obje...
Table of Contents Introduction:This document describes details on how
NAT-T works. Background: ESP encrypts all critical information,
encapsulating the entire inner TCP/UDP datagram within an ESP header.
ESP is an IP protocol in the same sense that TCP an...