Using ipsec tunnel interface in an outbound policy


#1

Hello,
I need to use IPSEC tunnel interface in Outbound Policy. If you can add this feature.I can use ipsec tunnel as backup of speedfusion tunnel…
So I will add priority based outbound policy, redirect traffic to speedfusion with first priority and redirect same traffic to ipsec tunnel with second priority
Please review my drawing in attach…

Peplink only allow to use speedfusion tunnel interface in outbound policy. This featue is very important for this case and other same case…
I think another method is creating two speddfusion tunnel between two peplinks…But I could not also this config…
Because I need to define Local ID per VPN…But peplink only support one local ID per device…

Please review my drawing…
Thanks,

Aytan


#2

Hi Aytan,

Your network drawing is very helpful for us to understand your requirement. The good news is that, the coming firmware should solve both of your problems! Instead of allowing to select an IPsec connection in Outbound Policy, you will be allowed to configure an IPsec profile to connect only when a selected SpeedFusion profile is disconnected. Something like creating multiple SpeedFusion profiles to the same peer will be allowed too. Apart from that, you can enable RIP/OSPF on the LAN side of the Peplink in HQ to advertise routes from SpeedFusion peers.

We target to release the next firmware in Q4 this year.

Thanks!
Michael


#3

Thanks Michael,
I look forward to releasing new firmware…


#4

When can I expect the firmware with RIP/OSPF on the LAN side? It would really help me.

//Marco


#5

The OSPF/RIPv2 feature support is added to 6.0.1 feature list, the GA firmware will be available in Q2 2013.


#6

Hello,

Is it now possible to use outbound policy with IPsec? I don’t see it in the list.

Kr,
PG


#7

Hi PG,

As mentioned by Michael here, we provided an alternative way to failover to IPSec when SpeedFusion was down. Please find the screenshot below for better understanding.

Network > IPSec VPN > Select IPSec profile > “?” of Active > here.