From: Rob on
We have a 3725 (IOS 12.4(5a) which serves a number of VPNs with crypto
map statements like this:

crypto map vpn-4 168 ipsec-isakmp
set peer a.b.c.d
set transform-set aes-sha
match address vpn-168

ip access-list extended vpn-168
permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 172.31.32.168 0.0.0.7

AFAIK, the access list in this config only determines what traffic
is expected encrypted and what traffic can be unencrypted.

Is it also possible to add an access list to this config that determines
what traffic is allowed through this tunnel? I.e. that is applied after
decryption. I would like to restrict the user at the other end of
the tunnel from accessing certain services on the local network.

Right now I have an outbound access list on the LAN interface, but it
seems kind of backward. One would want to filter at the source.
From: Uli Link on
Rob schrieb:
> We have a 3725 (IOS 12.4(5a) which serves a number of VPNs with crypto
> map statements like this:
>
> crypto map vpn-4 168 ipsec-isakmp
> set peer a.b.c.d
> set transform-set aes-sha
> match address vpn-168
>
> ip access-list extended vpn-168
> permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 172.31.32.168 0.0.0.7

crypto map vpn-4 168 ipsec-isakmp
set ip access-group <acl-name> in|out

<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t8/feature/guide/gt_crpks.html>


--
ULi
From: Rob on
Uli Link <VonRechts.NachLinks(a)usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> Rob schrieb:
>> We have a 3725 (IOS 12.4(5a) which serves a number of VPNs with crypto
>> map statements like this:
>>
>> crypto map vpn-4 168 ipsec-isakmp
>> set peer a.b.c.d
>> set transform-set aes-sha
>> match address vpn-168
>>
>> ip access-list extended vpn-168
>> permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 172.31.32.168 0.0.0.7
>
> crypto map vpn-4 168 ipsec-isakmp
> set ip access-group <acl-name> in|out
>
> <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t8/feature/guide/gt_crpks.html>

Thank you! I remember that I worked with versions that passed the
traffic through the interface incoming ACL both before and after decryption
(and that I found it strange) but I was not aware where the second check
had moved.