[j-nsp] J-series, hoping packets between routing-instances

[Alex Arseniev]

Hello,
Multiple routing-instances with "next-table" statics is a supported SRX 
configuration, see
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/topics/example/nat-security-mutiple-isp-configuring.html 

You can "shortcut" packets between RI with lt-* interfaces as well, but 
lt-* interfaces are not supported in SRX cluster.
HTH
Thanks
Alex

On 07/11/2013 14:37, Mike Williams wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I might have painted myself into a corner here, so I'm here looking for
> options from people far cleverer than I.
>
> Firstly, a bit of history.
>
> We're using J6350s, and SRX650s, as "security devices on a stick".
> Our Ms and MXs punt packets into a routing instance on the "security devices"
> with firewall filters. Those routing instances purposely only use the most
> basic of static routes possible (10/8, 192.168/16, etc), so we can be certain
> what zones packets pass through so the policies match.
>
> That all works fine.
>
>
> We're also centralising our inter-site IPSec onto the Js and SRXs, but need
> OSPF there, so have a second routing-instance and a partial mesh of routed
> tunnels between them.
> Still, all good.
> Offices and what-not have tunnels tied directly to the IPSec routing-instances
> and OSPF metrics keep traffic flows sane.
> All hunky dory.
>
>
>
> Now the problem.
>
> I need to take traffic from servers behind an M/MX have it policy'd by the
> "security" routing instance, then encrypted by the IPSec routing-instance.
> If I punt traffic into "security", let it come back to the router, then punt
> it back into "ipsec", everything works as expected.
> However each packet has to pass across the M/MX<->J/SRX link 4 times, in out,
> in out. Shake it all about.
>
> Obviously this would be better if we could shortcut the M/MX step in the
> middle and move packets from "security" to "ipsec", and "ipsec" to "security"
> directly.
>
> As "security" doesn't run OSPF/BGP/ISIS/etc adding a static route "next-table
> ipsec.inet.0" is fine.
> "ipsec" *does* run OSPF though, so I need to do FBF to override that. I've
> tried a "then routing-instance security" filter applied on output on the
> interface facing the M/MX, but my traffic get lost somewhere. Security
> policies from 'input-ipsec-zone' to 'output-security-zone' were added.
>
>
> I'm wondering if 'moving' packets from routing-instance to routing-instance on
> a flow-mode device simply screws up security policies. As one of the input or
> output interface don't exist in the routing-instance.
> So I figured *routing* packets from routing-instance to routing-instance would
> be better. Time for some logical tunnels! J-series devices don't support
> logical tunnels though.
>
> Argh!
>