Support Forum
The Forums are a place to find answers on a range of Fortinet products from peers and product experts.
IT_STAFF
New Contributor

IPSEC Tunnel

Hi

At my client I have made IPSEC tunnels between devices, Connections are Established on 2 phases, you can see the traffic that works, from the FG device I can  PING, Tracert, works properly however from the workstation itself unfortunately does not work,

I test Tracert from workstation:
goes to FG and disappears (only 1 hop to GW fortigate).
There are policies and routing set up.

 

I'll add that I'm using a non-RFC address in local network 192.100.100.0/24 (could this be the problem?) in Traffic Monitor I can see that traffic is going into Tunnel



8 REPLIES 8
AEK
SuperUser
SuperUser

Hi

Can you check on the remote FG (diag sniffer, diag debug flow) what is it doing with the received packets.

Using public address in local is not recommended but this should not be the root cause of your issue.

AEK
AEK
IT_STAFF
New Contributor

Hi,
I will prepare and come back with a logs. 

IT_STAFF
New Contributor

hi, sorry for late. I make some troubleshoot:

Spoiler
FortiGate-1 # diagnose sniffer packet any "host 10.255.8.65" 4
interfaces=[any]
filters=[host 10.255.8.65]
6.086150 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
10.610817 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
15.611112 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
93.406903 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
94.410984 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
96.421100 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
100.425681 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
108.434763 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
133.834983 internal in 192.100.100.152.137 -> 10.255.8.65.137: udp 50
135.346875 internal in 192.100.100.152.137 -> 10.255.8.65.137: udp 50
136.859221 internal in 192.100.100.152.137 -> 10.255.8.65.137: udp 50
138.395823 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
142.096628 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
146.100585 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
150.105406 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
154.108174 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
158.097140 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
162.112659 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
166.100899 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
170.097620 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
174.112649 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
178.099685 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
182.103755 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
Spoiler
FortiGate-1 # 2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=print_pkt_detail line=5811 msg="vd-root:0 received a packet(proto=1, 192.100.100.152:1->10.255.8.65:2048) t
un_id=0.0.0.0 from internal. type=8, code=0, id=1, seq=4043."
2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=init_ip_session_common line=5995 msg="allocate a new session-003652ab"
2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=vf_ip_route_input_common line=2611 msg="find a route: flag=80000000 gw-10.255.8.65 via root"
2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=fw_local_in_handler line=606 msg="iprope_in_check() check failed on policy 0, drop"

From PC show policy ID 0 

Ping from Fortigate is ok.

Spoiler
PING 10.255.8.65 (10.255.8.65): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms




sw2090
SuperUser
SuperUser

most times i run into this (see traffic going into the ipsec but not seing it on the other end) it is due to bad or wrong pase2 quick selectors. So I would suggest checking on these.

-- 

"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." - Douglas Adams

-- "It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." - Douglas Adams
IT_STAFF
New Contributor

 

hi, sorry for late. I make some troubleshoot:

I have create policies in both directions and static routes via tunnel ipsec.


FortiGate-1 # diagnose sniffer packet any "host 10.255.8.65" 4
interfaces=[any]
filters=[host 10.255.8.65]
6.086150 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
10.610817 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
15.611112 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
93.406903 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
94.410984 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
96.421100 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
100.425681 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
108.434763 internal in 192.100.100.152.58843 -> 10.255.8.65.443: syn 382569304
133.834983 internal in 192.100.100.152.137 -> 10.255.8.65.137: udp 50
135.346875 internal in 192.100.100.152.137 -> 10.255.8.65.137: udp 50
136.859221 internal in 192.100.100.152.137 -> 10.255.8.65.137: udp 50
138.395823 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
142.096628 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
146.100585 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
150.105406 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
154.108174 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
158.097140 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
162.112659 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
166.100899 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
170.097620 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
174.112649 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
178.099685 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request
182.103755 internal in 192.100.100.152 -> 10.255.8.65: icmp: echo request

FortiGate-1 # 2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=print_pkt_detail line=5811 msg="vd-root:0 received a packet(proto=1, 192.100.100.152:1->10.255.8.65:2048) t
un_id=0.0.0.0 from internal. type=8, code=0, id=1, seq=4043."
2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=init_ip_session_common line=5995 msg="allocate a new session-003652ab"
2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=vf_ip_route_input_common line=2611 msg="find a route: flag=80000000 gw-10.255.8.65 via root"
2025-03-03 12:42:19 id=65308 trace_id=11 func=fw_local_in_handler line=606 msg="iprope_in_check() check failed on policy 0, drop"

From PC show policy ID 0 

Ping from Fortigate is ok.

PING 10.255.8.65 (10.255.8.65): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms



 

AEK
SuperUser
SuperUser

Hi IT_STAF

The packet is being dropped by FortiGate-1 (check failed on policy 0, drop).

Most probably the firewall rule intended to allow this traffic is misconfigured. Other (less) possible reason is the phase 2 selector.

If you can share a screenshot of the firewall rule and phase 2 selector we may help.

AEK
AEK
IT_STAFF
New Contributor

Hi, thanks for help.

Screenshot 2025-03-04 at 11.46.57.pngScreenshot 2025-03-04 at 11.38.26.pngScreenshot 2025-03-04 at 11.39.44.pngScreenshot 2025-03-04 at 11.54.00.png

AEK
SuperUser
SuperUser

I see from FGT you can ping the destination in 0ms (64 bytes from 10.255.8.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms). It's like if you have a local interface, a VIP or an IP pool having the same address as 10.255.8.65 (or on the same subnet) on your local FortiGate.

Can you double check?

AEK
AEK
Announcements
Check out our Community Chatter Blog! Click here to get involved
Labels
Top Kudoed Authors