- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Question on 0.0.0.0 gateway over IPsec.
Hello,
Thanks beforehand for any help regarding my question.
We have a simple multi-WAN setup where a particular element I cannot fully understand.
Two subnets, e.g. 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 managed by our Fortigate firewall, connected to one WAN interface (WAN1.) In the firewall there also is a IPsec connection. We have created policy routes to say that the first network should go out from WAN1 and the second one, through the IPsec connection.
In the IPsec connection, I noticed that the gateway is set to 0.0.0.0/0. Notice that I'm not talking about the destination address in a route. I'm talking, specifically, about the gateway itself. So, how does this make sense? And how is it possible that the setup actually works, taking into account these conditions?
Thanks and have a good day all!
- Labels:
-
IPsec
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @aprilssss ,
When you see 0.0.0.0 as the gateway for an IPsec interface, it's not a mistake — it's by design in FortiOS. Here's why:
- IPsec interfaces (specifically route-based VPNs using virtual interfaces) do not require a traditional next-hop gateway in the way physical interfaces like WAN1 or WAN2 do.
- FortiGate uses the tunnel itself as the "path", and routes are based on the tunnel interface name, not a next-hop IP.
- Since there's no ARP or neighbor discovery over a VPN tunnel, and since the remote end of the tunnel is not directly reachable via Layer 3, FortiOS sets the gateway as 0.0.0.0.
This is just a placeholder — FortiGate knows to route traffic out via the tunnel based on matching policy routes or regular routes that reference the tunnel interface, not an IP next-hop.
If you review the following article, it may help answer your question and provide useful insights.
BR.
If my answer provided a solution for you, please mark the reply as solved it so that others can get it easily while searching for similar scenarios.
CCIE #68781
