Hi guys,
Yes you are right and I am sorry for the confussion.
I represented 2 different addresses with the same letter.
So,
Topology is, as correctly mentioned lpaniagua:
OpenVPN_Server------------(reth2.110)-SRX-(reth2.150)-------------INTERNET------------OpenVPN_Client
10.0.110.11------------------(reth2.110)-SRX-(reth2.150)-------------Internet----------------1.1.1.1 (let's say)
Let's define the public ips
OpenvpnServer public ip 2.2.2.198/28
OpenvpnServer internal ip 10.0.110.11/32
Openvpn client public ip 1.1.1.1/32
So the flow goes like this
May 27 17:55:14 17:55:14.397463:CID-1:RT:<10.0.110.11/1201->1.1.1.1/1194;17> matched filter PF2:
show security na static
from zone ISP_ALL_EMPL; rule Openvpn-fiber match { destination-address 2.2.2.198/32; } then { static-nat { prefix { 10.0.110.11/32; } } }
show security nat proxy-arp interface reth2.150 { address { 2.2.2.198/32; other_public_ip_of_the_same_block_for_other_service/32;
As for the PBR this interface is not configured anymore with the filter. i deleted before the issue and the issue persists
show interfaces reth2.110 description DMZ-ZONE; vlan-id 110; family inet { address 10.0.110.1/24; }
the filter that WAS applied is:
# show firewall filter redirect-traffic-fiber term default-table { from { destination-address { 10.0.0.0/8; 192.168.0.0/16; 172.16.0.0/22; } } then accept; } term to-fiber{ then { routing-instance routing-table-fiber; } }
and the instance is
# show routing-instances routing-table-fiber instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 2.2.2.193/32;--->the gw of my ISP from the /28 block } }
So now for the question concerning under which routing-instance(s) are reth2.110, reth2.150 and pp0.3 we have:
reth2.110 is a DMZ int and is not applied in any routing-instance because is not a provider's interface
reth2.150 is applied with my ISP's gw 2.2.2.193
pp0.3 is also applied
# show routing-instances routing-smtng-inf { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop pp0.4; } } } routing-table-Dept1-to-Internet { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 2.2.2.193;---->my ISP gw } } } routing-table-Dpt2-to-Specific public_srv { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route a.a.a.a/32 next-hop pp0.3; } } } routing-table-all-empl { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route ...... /32 next-hop pp0.3; route ......./32 next-hop pp0.3; route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop [ pp0.1 reth2.2222 pp0.3 pp0.5 2.2.2.193 ]; route ....../32 next-hop pp0.1; route ...../32 next-hop pp0.1; route ...../32 next-hop pp0.3; route 192.168.0.0/16 next-hop 10.0.111.254;----->DMZ-lan for internal openvpn communication (2nd interface) } } } routing-table-email { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop pp0.2; } } } routing-table-fiber{ instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 2.2.2.193; } } } routing-table-guests { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop pp0.0; } } } routing-table-serv-vpns { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop b.b.b.b/32; } } } routing-table-servers-fiber { instance-type forwarding; routing-options { static { route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop [ b.b.b.b 2.2.2.193 ]; } } }
right now traceoptions are configured to rewrite until maximux size is reached, so until now, i don't have any disconnections. i will post as soon as i notice any disconnection
Version: Model: srx550
JUNOS Software Release [12.3X48-D55.4] clustered