AWS IPSEC on BGP routing (how to control traffic preference for each tunnel?)

[FortDoog]

Good day guys.

I have the following setup.

• 200F with dual WAN
• 4 tunnels to AWS (the usual IPSEC with 2 tunnels).
• Probably, next year, hopefully, I will have AWS Direct Connect.

Let´s begin with the IPSEC tunnels first:

I´m having issues with the ECMP on the AWS TGW, what I need is just failover between the tunnels, but I want to setup the priority in which they are used under normal conditions, like in the following graph:

I want to influence the traffic (inbound and outbound) so it has the Tunnels in this order of preference:

1. Main_Tunnel01
2. Main_Tunnel02
3. Secondary_Tunnel01
4. Secondary_Tunnel02

Or

1. Main IPSEC
2. Secondary IPSEC

Right now, what I´m having (with ECMP disabled) is that I´m loosing traffic partially if I lose a Tunnel. If I enable ECMP, I get traffic through all the tunnels, and I do not want that.

I found the Technical Tip : Difference between asymmetric routing and auxiliary sessions., I will testing that also, but right now I´m confussed with this AWS documentation: 

• https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/creating-active-passive-bgp-connections....
• https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/direct-connect-asymmetric-routing
• https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/direct-connect-bgp-communities

IF I understood correctly the AWS docs, I should use:

• Outbound traffic: Local Preference, if not, then I should use AS_Path
• Inbound traffic: Local Preference, if not, MED, if not, then I should use AS_Path

Meaning that I would need two sets of route maps (right?) they would identical in prefix list (my case), but they will differ regarding the Local Preference, MED and AS_Path.

My questions are:

• do I need to setup Local Preference, MED and AS_Path for AWS IPSEC routing inffluencing (all of them, meaning more route maps)?
• or can I use just one of them? meaning, just two route maps, one with more influence than the other,
• if so, which one should I use (Local Preference, MED or AS_Path)???

Keep in mind that I have to leave the space for the future implementation of the Direct Connect, so, whatever I use, I have to leave it so that in case that the Direct Connect fails, the failover SHOULD be Main IPSEC, if the Main IPSEC fails too, then Secondary IPSEC.

Please, I need guidance, oh Wise People of the Community, Help. (FWI: english is my second language, that´s why I´m getting a little confused, sorry about that).

[FortDoog]

If I understood correctly, the subnet mask should match the filter ge then? (remember, simple terms, since this is all in english)

[BillH_FTNT]

 a.b.c.d 255.224.0.0

=> Subnet mask len is 15

So, the "ge" must be greater 15. 

[Toshi_Esumi]

ge and le length need to be longer than the network length. The error message says it all

FGTxxxxx1 (1) # next
Invalid prefix range -- make sure: len < ge-value <= le-valueobject check operator error, -650, discard the setting
Command fail. Return code 1

I think this is common with other routers like Cisco. Or FTNT copied this spec from Cisco.

Toshi

[FortDoog]

Ok, now I understand.

For posterity or anyone reading this. The filters (ge and or le) MUST be different than the subnet you are trying to filter.

Like Bill and Toshi said:

• set prefix a.b.c.d /20 for example.

The ge would NOT be 20, neither le.

It has to be:

• in case of ge, 19. So it will take all network greater than 19, those will be, 20, 21, and so on.
• Or the reverse of it,  in case of le, 21. Is kinda like a math equation.

[Toshi_Esumi]

I think 19 and 20 is prohibited if the network length is /20. Otherwise the error message the system gave me is wrong. Did you test and confirm as the fact?

Toshi

[FortDoog]

That´s the thing, it did NOT give me an error. Now, there is one big thing I believe I did not point out, and it was critital to say: the firmware is 6.x.x. (I don´t recall the exact number right now). So most probably, the whole problem was due an old forgotten bug probably. and most most probably corrected in newer versions.

I know, you will ask why in 2024 we are running a 200F firewall on 6.x.x firmware... ask my management about that... I decided just to do my best with what I got / what I am allowed to do.

[BillH_FTNT]

@FortDoog You should upgrade to a new one such as 7.0.13 or 7.2.6 

I think they are better