Interface Route - Next Hop Unknown
I'm setting up a FGT for our company to take on a "work retreat" where we'll plug the firewall into the hosts network and all our clients will sit behind the firewall. The firewall will get its WAN IP from DHCP and I'm configuring a tunnel from this to our head office, then tunneling all traffic from this remote site, routing everything out to the Internet via this tunnel. This is a requirement to ensure all of these clients are hitting other resources with a known, trusted public IP address.
I've tested all of this in a lab environment with KVM FGT devices and all seems to work fine. However, in my lab, all addresses were statically configured and to get the tunnel to function correctly, I had to add a more specific route on the "remote" firewall to the "head office" firewall outside IP address otherwise, once the tunnel interface was up it would then send traffic to this destination which would break the tunnel. So my static routes are like this:
0.0.0.0/0 via tunnel-interface
head.office.fw.ip/32 via wan1 next-hop locally.connected.next.hop
So far, so good. But...
The difference with the actual network will be that with the WAN IP and default gateway being assigned via DHCP, I don't know what the next-hop is going to be. I figured I could add an interface route for this destination address and not define the next-hop and it would work it out from the DHCP assigned gateway on the same interface. If I leave the next-hop blank in the GUI, it says invalid next-hop address. If I use 0.0.0.0 as the next-hop, the gui accepts this but it doesn't work - the routing table shows this as a directly connected route which is obviously not correct.
I gather I can't do an interface route without a defined next-hop on the WAN interface because it's not a point-to-point interface like the tunnel interface is. I'm all out of ideas. Is it possible to do what I want or is it going to come down to having to know what the next-hop is and then configuring a static route at that point? I've also tried a policy route but couldn't get that to work either.
Any ideas?
