u/Proof-Experience-502

Is it true SonicWall GVC genuinely cannot support LAN-initiated traffic to a connected GVC client.

Remotehost can ping Lanhost, but Lanhost and cannot ping the virtual IP of remotehost.

The tech said: GVC is client-to-server only, LAN can't initiate to a GVC client without site-to-site. Is that a fundamental mischaracterization of IPSec? — SAs are inherently bidirectional. The reason LAN→GVC reverse traffic works in countless other SonicWall deployments is exactly that.

What the packet monitor actually shows is a **routing failure, not a tunnel-direction failure**:

- "in X0, out --, Initiator Route: None / Responder Route: None — dropped before policy"

- That means the firewall did a route lookup for 192.168.3.x(virtual IP), found only the X4 connected route, tried to forward via X4, and there was no usable next hop (link-down → no ARP). It was never an SA/tunnel decision.

Should I Push back. Ask them specifically: "Per packet monitor, the drop reason is 'no route', not an SA/policy decision. Why does SonicWall publish an interface-independent DHCP scope option for GVC if LAN→GVC is impossible by design?"

"If you look at the drivers of that increase in the unemployment rate, in particular for April, it was not driven by permanent layoffs, so that's kind of the good news," RBC assistant chief economist Nathan Janzen said.

"What drove the unemployment rate higher, a lot of it was people quitting their current job to look for a new one."

Who are these ppl quiting b4 finding a job in enviroment!?