Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> 
> Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> > For futher information, please, let me know and I will be as verbose as
> > necessary on a separate webpage.  Let's hope that I remember to publish
> > the final solution exhaustively to the list ;>
> 
> It would be nice to see the complete firewall rule dump from both
> machines, although in your test network you could simply flush all
> firewall rules on bluetrout (the Cisco "emulator"), if it's not hooked
> to the internet.

It is a live internet DCD . . .

>  Regardless, the firewall rules on pinktrout are a
> "Must see", especially given the log errors.

Simply ipchains -nvL ???

> The complete output of "ip addr" and "ip route" from *BOTH* systems
> would also be very helpful.

ip route is complete in last post; ip addr will go on the webpage, too .
. .

<snip />

> > [4] Neither side can ping anything on the other side.
> 
> Hmm...probably due to the dropped protocol 50 packets on pinktrout (item
> [7], below).

<snip />

> > [6] udp port 500 & protocols 50 & 51:
> >
> >     root@bluetrout:/root
> >     # ipchains -nvL --line-numbers | grep '\( 5[01] \|500$\)'
> >     1  0  0    ACCEPT  51  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     2  0  0    ACCEPT  50  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     3  0  0    ACCEPT  51  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     4  0  0    ACCEPT  50  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     5  0  0    ACCEPT  51  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     6  0  0    ACCEPT  50  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     7  0  0    ACCEPT  51  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     8  0  0    ACCEPT  50  ------ 0xFF 0x00  *     144.228.51.210  64.4.222.157  
>n/a
> >     53 62 9756 ACCEPT  udp ------ 0xFF 0x00  wan1  0.0.0.0/0       64.4.222.157  * 
>-> 500
> >
> >     root@pinktrout:/root
> >     # ipchains -nvL --line-numbers | grep '\( 5[01] \|500$\)'
> >     50  26  6156 ACCEPT  udp  ------ 0xFF 0x00  wan1  0.0.0.0/0  144.228.51.210  * 
>-> 500
> 
> I think you need a log accepting protocol 50 traffic on pinktrout...
> 
> > [7] kern.log:
> >
> > root@pinktrout:/root
> > # tail -f /var/log/kern.log
> > Nov 12 20:41:18 pinktrout kernel: Packet log: input DENY wan1 PROTO=50 
>64.4.222.157:65535 144.228.51.210:65535 L=136 S=0x00 I=62911 F=0x0000 T=54 (#56)
> > Nov 12 20:41:19 pinktrout kernel: Packet log: input DENY wan1 PROTO=50 
>64.4.222.157:65535 144.228.51.210:65535 L=136 S=0x00 I=62913 F=0x0000 T=54 (#56)
> > Nov 12 20:41:20 pinktrout kernel: Packet log: input DENY wan1 PROTO=50 
>64.4.222.157:65535 144.228.51.210:65535 L=136 S=0x00 I=62915 F=0x0000 T=54 (#56)
> 
> This is Very Bad...

Yes, that is why I posted ;>

I thought that protocols 50 & 51 *should* be coming in on ipsec0 ???

Or, is it _proper_ to open that up independent of all interfaces?

<snip />

> Conf files look OK.  I thought you were going to be using PSK to talk to
> the Cisco (you have RSA sig-keys in the conf file), but as long as the
> tunnel comes up, you should be OK for testing...

I decided to modify a _working_ gw-gw tunnel and assumed, as you
apparently concur, that I can ignore psk for now . . .

> The main problem I see is the denied IPSec traffic on pinktrout.  You
> don't mention which machines you tried to ping from/to...remember,
> you'll only be able to ping from pinktrout to machines on the
> 192.168.1.0/24 net other than bluetrout.

I have a special _ip route change_ cli that adds the DCD's to the ipsec0
routing.

I tried pinging from both ends.  tcpdump saw the pings enter the tunnel;
but, nothing came out either tunnel.

I did not find any errors logged on bluetrout -- pinktrout complains
about protocol 50.

> Once you get pinktrout talking to the remote network, you can start
> adding masq rules to try and get the networks behind pinktrout talking
> to the far end.  With any luck, that should just work with the
> appropriate masq rule added to the forward rule chain.

Actually, I have already added a masq rule.  Apparently, if I open up
protocol 50 -- properly -- you think that all will fall into place, as I
hope?

Thanks for your participation . . .

-- 

Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
888.250.3987

Dare to fix things before they break . . .

Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we
think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Are you worried about 
your web server security? Click here for a FREE Thawte 
Apache SSL Guide and answer your Apache SSL security 
needs: http://www.gothawte.com/rd523.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html

Reply via email to