1
17.1 Legacy Series / Re: Disappointed by IPSec management
« on: March 11, 2017, 09:51:55 pm »Quote
If we assume pfSense 2.3 is better in this regard, you're essentially disappointed that we are not pfSense 2.3.Not, at all.
If I'm trying to migrate our firewall from pfSense to OPNsense - that's because I'm NOT satisfied by the functioning of pfSense. And that's because I hoped to be more happy with OPNsense, for myself and (maybe) for my customers.
Quote
This is also suboptimal because by thinking IPsec tunnels can simply be copied and will work will lead you to think that OPNsense doesn't work as it should. Which is maybe not so true.When I look into xml with IPsec configurations exported from pfSense and from OPNsense - they seem to be similar. So, I hope that it should work. And when I search a firewall to replace pfSense - the possibility of importing the actual configuration brings OPNsense to the first place in my list.
Quote
We added features, pfSense added features. If you use these newer features they may not work here. It's natural.All our IPsec tunnels were created in pfSense 2.1, they don't use something 'new' from pfSense features. Anyway, as I've mentioned, the newly created tunnel has the same problems as the imported one. Maybe, there is an influence of another tunnel to this one, but it should not influence like this normally.
Quote
BINAT doesn't work. It requires a pfSense patch to StrongSwan which we are unwilling to touch.Nice to know it. Why is BINAT still present in Web interface of OPNsense? It's confusing!
Quote
This is odd, but then the question is does it work when you restart the service?If the route is not deleted (it randomly happens), disabling/enabling IPsec (checkbox at the bottom of the page) does not change it. I don't know if it really restarts IPsec service.
Quote
What pfSense version are you using, what OPNsense version?pfSense 2.3.2-RELEASE-p1, OPNsense 17.1.2.