PepVPN - Disable peers from talking to each other

Good day,

I have a 380 at location HQ
I have 310s at Branch A and Branch B

PepVPN connection from Branch A to HQ
PepVPN connection from Branch B to HQ

I notice now that Branch A and Branch B are able to talk to each other.

I don’t want this to happen, what is the best way to prevent?

Thank you,


You can setup a inbound firewall rule on the 310’s to deny the LAN networks of either end.

Thank you for your reply

If I setup an Outbound firewall rule at Branch A, I can block traffic to Branch B
If I setup an Inbound firewall rule at Branch B, I cannot seem to block traffic from Branch A

I would rather have B prevent A from getting in.

My Inbound rule at Branch B is set as follows
Protocol : Any
WAN : Any
Source : (Branch A LAN)
Destination: Any
Policy: Deny

My assumption would be that the rule “WAN:Any” does not care about VPN traffic?


The below rules should work so Branch A cannot access Branch B and Vice-Versa.

These firewall rules should work, however you can also control this from the HQ 380 central location.

Hi Ron, that would be preferred!

I tried that first.

On the 380 I put both Inbound a Outbound rules to Deny Branch A subnet from Branch B subnet.

However, I am still able to ping from at PC at Branch A to a PC at Branch B

Jarid, that is how I have it setup.

Branch A (192.168.175.x)

Branch B (192.168.176.x)

Unless I’m missing something basic (always possible)

Hello Jason,

If you could open a support ticket one of our technical support members will be able to take a look and assist you to get everything working properly

Thanks, That’s what I’ll do.
I have to get these out the door but will follow up with a support ticket next week.

Any resolution on this ticket? I am having the same issue limiting PepVPN traffic using rules.

I would check and make sure the devices are on current 6.2.0 firmware as well. If they are and there is still a issue, appreciate if you could create a ticket for support to look further.

Upgrading to 6.2.0 resolved the problem! thank you!!


I believe this have been resolved.