Vpn traffic selectors unacceptable. I am sure these are symptoms related to a common problem.

Vpn traffic selectors unacceptable You cannot change the traffic selectors during the rekey process but when you change, the rekey request is rejected with the message TS_UNACCEPTABLE. e. For example, if your on-premises network prefixes are 10. From what I can tell here, IKE phase The log shows that the traffic selectors are unacceptable. Scope: FortiGate. – Description . For instance, you can't specify the proposed traffic selectors. 5 and earlier firmware. all logs include "Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <IPv4 Universal Range> MyTSr: <IPv4 Universal Range>" as your mentioned i do the debugging, just "grep -A 40 -B 40 MyTSi" to get about 80 lines log output. bbb. Customers who enable CCCD are still vulnerable to Normally we configure IPsec for LAN-to-LAN communication which is also known as split-tunnel VPN when only specific hosts should be reachable via VPN tunnel. In logs (and IKEView), we see: Auth exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <IPv4 Universal Range> MyTSr: <My Peer's public IP>. 31. Hey, Having a terrible problem with Site to Site VPN, connecting to Rackspace, keep getting this message no matter what I try on the config? I was on a conference call with SonicWall and they are pointing to the remote site, and of course the remote is pointing to Sonicwall. Route-based: The encryption domain is set to allow any traffic which enters the IPSec tunnel. davidcowan1177 (IPX Dave) February 6, 2015, 8:49pm 16. After seeing this discussion, I downgraded the new TZ370 back to R906 and the VPN worked like it had been working on the old TZ300. We’ve tried what is proposed in sk157473 but no luck. Solution: IPsec VPN Tunnel interfaces may report When looking at "vpn tu tlist", you'll sometimes see "No outbound SA" when IPSec negotiations have failed, but IKE succeeded. yy. Verify the traffic selector / VPN Site configurations on both gateways and ensure My log shows a lot of VPN Policy Traffic Selectors Unacceptable errors. Thanks! ©1994-2025 Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. Let us consider the following example : A site-to-site VPN tunnel is created between SITE A and SITE B using MAIN MODE or See more Ensure that the Traffic selectors are an exact mirror image of each other on the two devices (match the network as well as the subnet mask). VPN traffic is forwarded to the IPsec VTI for encryption and then sent out the physical interface. route-based VPN devices differ in how the IPsec traffic selectors are set on a connection: As shown in the diagram, the Azure VPN gateway has traffic selectors from the virtual network to each of the on-premises network prefixes, but not the cross-connection prefixes. 255. For more information, see Connect VPN gateways to multiple on-premises policy-based VPN devices. 0/28 -- ASA --- Traffic is defined between 172. Scenario: 172. 30 take 204. 5 as Nat for my system that have to be reached from VPN tunnel. 5-p1 and @Thales Claro Apologize for not checking the script properly. 2 on external network and use a 2. ; Use the command "sh crypto ipsec sa peer aa. This only occure afte the tunnel has been taken down because on no traffic for a longer period. 2 Scheme: IKEv2 [UDP (IPv4)] Ike: Child SA exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <IPv4 Universal Range> MyTSr: <IPv4 Universal Range> IKE Initiator Cookie: 9168f24c72253a26 IKE Responder Cookie: e3c37a3a7679795a IKE Phase2 Message ID: 0000001c Community: S2S-NIT-VPN Hello, We’ve setup a VPN tunnel from our Check Point DC firewall to a Cisco ASA firewall in Australia but it doesn’t work. Traffic-selector mismatch, vpn name: CHECKPOINT-VTI, Peer Proposed traffic-selector local-ip: ipv4(0. Reason:Received unacceptable traffic selector in CREATE_CHILD_SA request. NOTE: IKE peers agree (traffic selector) to permit traffic through a VPN tunnel once the specified pair of local and remote addresses has been matched. IPsec log interpretation; Successful connections; Failed connection examples; Troubleshooting Duplicate IPsec SA Entries. Some suggestions assume that you are a network engineer with access to your CPE device's configuration. eg: Side A: From Side A Network to Side B Network then tunnel. We're running R77. But I check my VPN settings side by side and they all look the same to me. 0/0 and we use routing to send traffic via the FortiGate # diagnose vpn tunnel list name YOUR-TUNNEL-NAME --> The important field from the particular output is the "sa". The IPsec tunnel works fine, but from time to time, traffic After several Checks, I finally solved my issue. The two sides authenticate correctly, but then the responder claims that it doesn't find a suitable traffic selector, so the CHILD_SA is not established. Anyone have any ideas The VPN gateway accepts whatever traffic selector the remote VPN gateway proposes, irrespective of what's configured on the VPN gateway. I set up the connection from PowerShell as follows: Hello, I'm trying to start a new vpn tunnel from my CheckPoint Gaia R77. EleniumIT. Make sure the Perfect Forward Secrecy settings match on the local and remote firewall. 30 and MultiDomain Gaia R77. The IPsec tunnel works fine, but from time to time, traffic stops passing through the tunnel. Azure VPN Gateways support specific IPsec and IKE configurations that must match with If any party provides traffic-selectors that are not allowed, you will get a IKEV2_NOTIFY_TS_UNACCEPTABLE message similar to the following; { NCP client logs } On the PAN device we have the following type of vpn logtypes Traffic selectors are generally when one side proposes a host/subnet that is not defined on the other side. If this is not selected, create rules in the Security Policy Rule Base to allow encrypted traffic between community members " Sophos Firewall: Troubleshooting steps when traffic is not passing through the VPN tunnel. zz" to check for the inbound Traffic selectors do not match TS unacceptable: Received traffic selectors do not match what the NGFW proposed as selectors. 0-255. VPN Peer Gateway: 2. Traffic selectors are used during the CHILD_SA (tunnel creation) Phase 2 to set up the tunnel and to Check the on-premises device log to find why traffic selector configuration proposed by the Azure VPN gateway isn't accepted by the on-premises device. The tunnel status shows up and running but the traffic cannot pass through the VPN. We are trying to set up a site-to-site VPN on Azure using IkeV2 and a Traffic Selector Policy. On NGFW-1 we configure the subnets and on the ISFW we use wildcard selectors: NGFW-1 # show vpn ipsec phase2-interface config vpn ipsec phase2 ©1994-2025 Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. 0/0. Feb 13 17:19:35 charon 13[IKE] traffic selectors Is this a route-based VPN or a policy-based VPN? For further assistance, see KB10105 - [SRX] Difference between a policy-based VPN and a route-based VPN . responding to CREATE_CHILD_SA message (ID 30) from CPE_PUBLIC_IP:4500 with encrypted notification I’ve hit a brick wall with this. March 2023 in Firebox "In a site to site VPN tunnel, if there is a mismatch in the networks defined for the VPN tunnel, it results in the "Traffic Selectors Unacceptable" warning message in the Logs. The Sonicwall is connecting to a Comcast Business Modem, I suspect Comcast, as Traffic selector mismatch occurs when the local and remote addresses for traffic in the VPN tunnel does not match the traffic selectors configured on either end of the VPN. Traffic selector mismatch is caused by configuration on either end of the VPN tunnel. Received unacceptable traffic selector in CREATE_CHILD_SA request. cannot find matching IPSec tunnel for received traffic selector"; Go to Network > IPSec Tunnels > edit IPSec Tunnel > Proxy IDs and verify that each Proxy ID entry is an exact mirror VPN; received TS_UNACCEPTABLE notify, no CHILD_SA built; Options. Thank you, Hi, Shortly after the VPN monitoring failure it complains about a TS unacceptable. The exact same VPN configuration works fine if we both choose "version v1 This article explains how to use multiple traffic selectors on a route-based VPN. No IKEv2 connection found with compatible Traffic Selectors. The Checkpoint administrator says that their encryption domain has the "any" parameter for services. SA can have three values: a) sa=0 indicates there is mismatch between selectors or no traffic is being initiated b) sa=1 indicates IPsec SA is matching and there is traffic between the selectors c) sa=2 is only visible Hi, I am new with policy base vpns, and I have a question, in the routing base vpns we should match the traffic selectors in phase 2, but this applies as well for the policy base vpns ? normaly we could leave 0. In a site-to-site VPN tunnel, if there is a mismatch in the networks defined for the VPN tunnel, it results in the"Traffic Selectors Unacceptable"warning message in the Logs. I have verified that both endpoints have to same setup. Traffic from LAN hosts passes through the Sophos Firewall. The System Logs showing "IKE protocol notification message received: received notify type TS_UNACCEPTABLE" VPN Tunnel specifically with a Policy-based VPN peer instead of a Routed-based VPN peer (i. VPN Logs show the reason for a failed connection between your branch office's SD-WAN Software-Defined Wide Area Network - A virtual WAN architecture that allows enterprises to leverage any combination of transport services – including MPLS, LTE and broadband internet services – to securely connect users to applications. Hi all, I'm having an issue with IKEv2 support. 30), " Encrypted Traffic - Select Accept all encrypted traffic to encrypt and decrypt all traffic between the Security Gateways. I setup a route-based VPN to an Azure tenancy recently. Maybe anyone can help me with that? Here are some short log outputs: Site A (192. 0/16, you need to specify the following traffic selectors: I'm trying to configure an ikev2 connection between a responder and a roadwarrior following the usable examples. Current version (2. 0/16 and 10. A first VPN Tunnel (VPN_site1) was set up with An Any/Any phase 2 subnets ( Local and remote)the second tunnel ( VPN_site2) was set up in first with the same full permissive Phase 2 and then adjust to the appropriate Local and remote Subnets. Yes the TS_UNACCEPTABLE seems to indicate a problem with the traffic selector, but we have taken an extra check on this to double-triple-check this, and I got access to the peer config as well to compare. ©1994-2025 Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. The intended policy is from an on-premises network to a subnet of the azure vnet that contains the Local network gateway. When I check through SmartView Monitor, I see that my tunnel is up. 4) and asa 5550 8. Check the Set each side to update a Dynamic DNS entry pointing to their actual, routable, outside WAN address. For example, an incorrect network ID or subnet mask which differs from the The debugs indicate that the remote end did not find FortiGate’s proposed traffic selectors (TS) acceptable due to a possible mismatch in the traffic selectors on the FortiGate Traffic Selectors Unacceptable. Click VPN, click the configure icon next to the appropriate VPN SA name. Policy-based VPN - Jump to Step 4 . After looking at vpnd. In IKEv1, a firewall that has a route-based VPN needs to use a local and remote Proxy ID in order to set up an IPSec tunnel. Tell each side to connect to the FQDN of the DynDNS entry on the other side. 0/0 and remote:0. These are the instructions I have received from the third party regarding the setup: When looking in SmartView Tracker I see an 'traffic selectors unacceptable' log entry. com I am trying to establish IPSec VPN tunnel using IKE v2 after authentication i get this message on pfSense. See KB Warning : "Traffic Selectors Unacceptable". 7. Attempting to configure a site-to-site VPN between our UDMPRO and a Sonicwall (unknown model) at a local school for a computer and some VoIP phones they have in a classroom at our building. 0/24 within that range. sonicwall. Tunnel establishes but no traffic passes; Some hosts work but not all; Connection hangs; Disappearing traffic; Troubleshooting IPsec Logs. The local and remote selectors should be 0. The VPN did not work. Go to solution. In R81. 0/24 subnet is being dropped. For example, we have two peers, ISFW and NGFW-1. This is the configuration of the connection. VIP OK, so I nuked the previous VPN configuration to attempt to create an IKEv2 VTI VPN between the sonicwall and my IR1101. 0/0, should this work ? I have set up a S2S VPN in Azure to connect to an on-prem device (PfSense) of a 3rd Party. Tunnel management is set to tunnel per host. Extra Payloads Present. 4(3)S4 I have Public IP 1. So maybe the other is not configured the same for your connection. 4. Not quite sure how to proceed with this. SonicWall IKE VPN negotiations, UDP Ports and NAT-Traversal explanation. We previously had this VPN functioning before we decommissioned our EOLSonicwall for the UDMPRO. 168. 0 On the sonicwall side, I am now seeing "Traffic Selectors Unacceptable" and "Negotiations Failed. Solved: Hi Team, I have a strange problem with a VPN L2L between an ASA on my side and a CheckPoint as the peer. We have managed to establish the VPN tunnel, and I can see the status of the connection in the Azure Portal is 'Connected', but when I try a telnet connection from a VM in my VNet to a device in the on-prem network it fails. I need an IKEv2 connection in transport mode between Strongswan and Cisco C819. X firmware. the reply UDP 5060 traffic was going through the first FortiGate 5. Thanks for the reply. 0/0 in both sides and control the traffic over the policy, but if one side specifies a network and the other leaves 0. The problem is that we have a larger virtual network subnet say 10. Configure policy-based traffic selector on the connection resource in Azure to keep the same configuration as on-premises device traffic selector. However, we may also take a different approach and configure VPN tunnel Check the on-premises device log to find why traffic selector configuration proposed by the Azure VPN gateway isn't accepted by the on-premises device. Resolution . Each peer compares its proxy IDs with what it received in the packet to negotiate IKE Phase 2 successfully. 2. I am sure these are symptoms related to a common problem. Traffic on UDP port 500 is used for the start of all IKE negotiations between VPN peers. please do not forget to rate. 0. 20. This is true of all IPSec platforms. This release includes significant user interface changes and many new features that are different from the SonicOS 6. 0 and later) Version 2. all failure. 0, can you provide the output of "show crypto ipsec sa detail" The debugs indicate that the remote end did not find FortiGate’s proposed traffic selectors (TS) acceptable due to a possible mismatch in the traffic selectors on the FortiGate and the remote end. 0 0. I tried adding custom traffic selectors to the connection, but still not working. Side B: From Side B Network to Side A Network then tunnel Might be tricky. The log file should tell you which traffic selectors is providing the error, otherwise you'll have to do a debug to get that information. 30. 5 Nat for I made the mistake of upgrading my new TZ370 to R1456 immediately - before trying it out with our IPsec VPN we had been using on the TZ300 it replaced. Ensure that the Traffic selectors are an exact mirror image of Unlike IKEv1, IKEv2 allows the responder to choose a subset of the traffic proposed by the initiator. On my PA-500 and PA-820's when I have a IKEV2 tunnel I tend to see this alot. Resolution for SonicOS 7. 172. We set up the connection and it fails due to "Traffic Selector Mismatch". uses ACL to control VPN traffic, not routes) If your VPN peer is a Route-based VPN peer, there is no need to use any Proxy IDs (should be left Hi. Gateway-Endpoint:'aaa. received notify type TS_UNACCEPTABLE Trying to figure out what is causing this. Route-based VPN - Continue with Step 3 . Only traffic that conforms to a traffic selector is permitted If you see the System Log "IKE protocol notification message received: received notify type TS_UNACCEPTABLE" or "IKEv2 child SA negotiation failed when processing traffic selector. When PolicyBasedTrafficSelectors = on/true, the custom configured traffic selectors will be proposed only when an Azure VPN gateway This sounds like an issue with traffic-selectors - if you are using policy-based VPN on both sides, you need to make sure the policy (eg: traffic you permit over the tunnel) is the same but reversed on each side. In some cases, UDP port 4500 is also used. Use one of the following methods to resolve the issue: Fix the traffic selector configuration on the tunnel of the on-premises device. Using P2 selectors on route-based IPsec VPN doesn't add anything other than complexity. If traffic isn’t passing through, kindly verify the following: IPsec configuration. > Could you share the ipsec config from the SRX340 side as well? ike 6:Azure_VPN:12455708:26580999: traffic selectors unacceptable However in the Azure connection details the custom traffic selectors are local:0. I'm trying to setup a VPN tunnel to a 3rd party and am running into some issues. 0/16, and your Here are two methods to define the VPN encryption domains: route-based or policy-based traffic selectors. › Firebox - VPN Branch Office . 0/16, and your virtual network prefixes are 192. Verify that the packets from your customer gateway are being encrypted and sent over the VPN tunnel. Both of these are running 8. Use one of the following methods to resolve the issue: From the Check Point VPN Admin guide for R80. 0 Helpful Reply My problem is that from VMs placed in the net 192. The priority of VPN and static routes. pfSense could be relevant as you are using that proprietary | syntax for traffic selectors that's not available in upstream strongSwan. The ACL is as simple as we can make it: Extended IP access list <ACL> 10 permit ip any 10. "" If I just rekey the tunnel manually it goes up instantly without a problem. Traffic will be permitted through the associated security association (SA) once it matches a specific traffic selector. 30 and remote Cisco Router ISR4431 - Version 15. With and without nm-applet, with and without storing passwords in user/all/prompt. The pinging problems can come from not having ping enabled on the interface, having firewall rules blocking communications from one zone (in Attention, quoting from Important security update - stay protected against VPN Information Disclosure (CVE-2024-24919). All rights reserved. double check at both end that your phase 1 and phase2 plus interested traffic is matching. 0/16 and 172. A maximum of 16 traffic selectors are accepted at the IKEv2 level. 5 to 2. do not know whether it is useful. Juniper traffic selectors don't seem to be able to be created with services. 255), Peer Proposed traffic-selector This topic covers the most common troubleshooting issues for Site-to-Site VPN. To troubleshoot this connectivity issue between Azure VPN and Cisco ASAv, I would suggest the below ways: Use Cisco Packet Tracer command to identify where the traffic for the 10. If some networks mentioned on one end of tunnel, don't match the other end, it results in the "Traffic Selectors Unacceptable" error. This technote will explain when and why. 6 Establish Site to Site VPN with Sonicwall firewall; Sonicwall Virtual Adapter 無法啟用; Sonicwall FortiGate防火牆建立Site to Site VPN [Notes] Sonicwall GAV / IPS and Capture ATP difference; Sonicwall is very slow to open web pages，Line can not send pictures The VPN gateway accepts whatever traffic selector the remote VPN gateway proposes, irrespective of what's configured on the VPN gateway. 4 The router conf: crypto isakmp policy 1 authentication pre-share encr 3des hash sha group 2 lifetime 86400 exit crypto isakmp key secretkey address router_external_ip crypto ipsec transform-set ASA-I @fonzane said in How to set SPD's/traffic selectors in IPsec?: Is it possible to use a policy based tunnel with bgp routing? @stephenw10 said in How to set SPD's/traffic selectors in IPsec?: But the screenshot from the AWS test clearly shows it using 0. The below resolution is for customers using SonicOS 7. Subscribe to RSS Feed; Mark Topic as New; Mark Topic as Read; Float this Topic for Current User This seem to be a config issue. 0/16 and the VPN should only be able to access 10. A common scenario where this This article describes how to troubleshoot IPsec VPN tunnel errors due to traffic not matching selectors. 250. 10 (I know you're on R77. For example, on-premises site 2, site 3, and site 4 can Ensure that the proposals are identical on both the VPN policies. Not sure if that's actually an issue here, though. But I dont see the problem. xx. conf in CF-W7:-----config setup plutostart=no If you don't configure any traffic selectors, strongSwan will propose a the router blocks UDP traffic and the VPN can't be set up. 0/0 Why are they seeing different traffic selectors than I'm specifying. 16. Thanks in advance received TS_UNACCEPTABLE notify, no CHILD_SA built ipsec. com'. 10 we added a feature to improve VPN performance - named CCCD. In logs (and IKEView), we see: Auth exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors The only time you'd want to specify the P2 selectors is when using policy-based IPsec VPN on one side or both. " Preview file 4 KB Preview file 64 KB 0 Helpful Reply. For route-based IPsec VPN on both sides leave them at 0. " https://www. 0) are droped by the TS (Traffic selector) in VPN Gateway. 21. MHM Cisco World. If firewall rules are created to allow VPN traffic. I have tested HI All, After several Checks, I finally solved my issue. The traffic selectors simply specify what traffic is tunneled. azure. uses ACL to control VPN traffic, not routes) If your VPN peer is a Route-based VPN peer, there is no need to use any Proxy IDs (should be left VPN Logs. Other side i have Public IP 2. 0/28 and a single host, but I see three SAs: 1. X. 1 on external network and use a 1. device and the Harmony Connect Secure This article describes the Log message "Traffic Selector Unacceptable" in a IPSEC VPN tunnel. elg (vpn debug on) I noticed I Start a continuous ping from a host that is part of the VPN tunnel to a remote host that is also part of the VPN tunnel and capture the traffic on the SonicWall. [Route-based VPN] Does the proxy identity received from the peer VPN device match that configured in your SRX device? Hello There, I did update several Pfsense-Boxes from 2. It's the routing (static/dynamic) which determines which traffic should be sent over a route based VPN. I have tested networkmanager-l2tp and strongswan across Ubuntu, Fedora, and Arch, on gnome, xfce, and plain ole TTY. 1. On other route-based VPNs I've setup, the traffic selectors for the source and destination is always 0. for more details. This feature is disabled by default, and we know about few advanced customers who are using it. It is possible to have overlapping VPNs for source connection expiring due to phase1 down Site-to-Site - Fortinet Community hi, remote traffic selectors with vti Hi, We have a remote ASA site which is configured as a universal tunnel back to a FirePower, and looking to migrate the local core to Check Point. . If the packets are marked as Consumed then they're being put into a VPN, however make sure they are being put into the correct VPN. This is called traffic selector narrowing. from cli, from the gui. Hello I have a Site-to-site VPN configured between checkpoint and cisco ASA. A traffic selector (also known as a proxy ID in IKEv1), is an agreement between IKE peers to permit traffic through a tunnel if the traffic matches a specified pair of local and remote addresses. 4 yesterday and have a real hard time now, because all of a sudden I encounter Reconnection-Problems in Phase 2. For policy-based configurations, check the Details of your VPN connection to verify that the traffic selectors are configured correctly If you enable this field, you need to ensure your VPN device has the matching traffic selectors defined with all combinations of your on-premises network (local network gateway) prefixes to/from the Azure virtual network prefixes, instead of any-to-any. Access is basically /32 to /32. A first VPN Tunnel (VPN_site1) was set up with An Any/Any phase 2 subnets ( Local and remote) the second tunnel ( VPN_site2) Read this topic to learn about the traffic selectors in route-based IPsec VPNs and how to configure traffic selectors in SRX Series Firewalls. Hello, We’ve setup a VPN tunnel from our Check Point DC firewall to a Cisco ASA firewall in Australia but it doesn’t work. What other VPN types does this device support? Because "Automatic subnet to subnet" isn't what the NM client is designed for (it's more for roadwarrior connections). A device with Strongswan is an initiator and has a non-public IP (it is behind NAT). The selectors sent by the peer gateway must either be exactly the same as the selectors that the NGFW proposed, or a subset of the of them. We did some debugging via ikeview and everything looked ok. IPSec Local and remote Hey I'm trying to set up a site-to-site vpn between a cisco 871 router(IOS 12. Set each side to use their own FQDN as Solved: Hi Team, I have a strange problem with a VPN L2L between an ASA on my side and a CheckPoint as the peer. 5. Tunnel fails during phase 2. 10 'IKEv2 SA negotiation is failed. If you send 10. Cisco is a responder and has a public IP. Also the Auth exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <our fw's public IP> MyTSr: <their fw's public IP> We created the VPN the same way you described, we recently tried creating a new group object for our network to not use the default encryption domain as you mentioned, but that did not work either. On the Proposals tab, make sure the IKE (phase 1) Proposal and Ipsec (phase 2) proposal is identical to the remote firewall. Try increasing the log level for cfg to see more about that child config lookup and traffic selector matching. Due to the NAT, the local traffic selector proposed by the client (its private IP) won't match the remote traffic selector the server derives from the client's public IP. 0/16, you need to specify the following traffic selectors: Confirm that the IPsec configuration on your VPN device satisfies the requirements for your customer gateway. The tunnel on subnet 10 Troubleshooting IPsec Traffic. But when I start communication, the first phase goes well, but on the second phase I receive a message Child SA exchange: Received notification from peer: We are trying to set up a site-to-site VPN on Azure. Policy-based vs. System Logs showing "IKE protocol notification message received: received notify type TS_UNACCEPTABLE" VPN Tunnel specifically with a Policy-based VPN peer instead of a Routed-based VPN peer (i. If none are specified, the default value is dynamic, which gets replaced with the actual IP address of the host (or a virtual IP if one is assigned). 0/24 & fd00::/112) Thus, Azure VPN Gateway will initiate the tunnel with Traffic Selector = 0. "vpn tu tlist" shows the outbound SA we use to encrypt traffic to the peer - it doesn't care which Usually traffic selectors unacceptable would indicate an issue with the configuration, usually a mismatch with the source and/or destination networks. 0/24, that's how it needs to be defined on both sides. 0/24 I am able to connect to on-prem but the packages coming from Azure IR (10. I only configured the ASA side and an engineer from another company setup the Azure side. lqtu yljcl oqjj fkcw fcbljar pjpwe mfd jlg rten slzd cifpmpvm hvu jotn rlgg syeno