[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 thank you sir. :) --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Thanks @swill @jayapalu for the work. I'll build a new systemvmtemplate to use with upcoming Trilian tests on master/4.10+. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user karuturi commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 It has required LGTMs and tests. I am merging this. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @deepthimachiraju remember that you need a new system vm built from this PR for this functionality to work. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user deepthimachiraju commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill Would do some basic testing of the PR and update the results. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Here is another set of tests run to validate all the settings (in addition to the normal tests). ```

Re: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

] Sent: vrijdag 10 februari 2017 09:27 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation Github user jayapalu commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill I have tested this PR with systemvm template

RE: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

VENetherlands @shapeblue -Original Message- From: jayapalu [mailto:g...@git.apache.org] Sent: vrijdag 10 februari 2017 09:27 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation Github user jayapalu commented on the issue: https

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user jayapalu commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill I have tested this PR with systemvm template with strongswan installed long back. The s2s vpn worked fine. LGTM from my side. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @DaanHoogland: yes, I want it run in Trillian, but my understanding is that manual steps need to be taken in the test setup for Trillian in order to first build the SystemVM from this PR and then

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user DaanHoogland commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill I know and work needs done. On the other hand, you mentioned you wanted to see this run in trillian. You still want that? Else I will skip and just review the code tomorrow.

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @DaanHoogland did you make the test run in Trillian install a SystemVM built from this PR? If you didn't it won't actually be a valid test run... --- If your project is set up for it, you can

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user DaanHoogland commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I started a build yesterday but am not at my computer today. I'll look at the results later. Biligual auto correct use. Read at your own risico On 8 Feb 2017 4:58 pm,

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Here is the CI run for this PR using my KVM Bubble environment. This CI run is using a SystemVM built from this PR branch (required for a valid test) and since we have not been able to do that

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 ### CI RESULTS ``` Tests Run: 87 Skipped: 1 Failed: 4 Errors: 0 Duration: 9h 13m 51s ``` **Summary of the problem(s):** ```

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @DaanHoogland I don't think this will work. I think you have to manually specify a SystemVM template built from this PR in order for the tests to work. I don't think a SystemVM from this PR is

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @DaanHoogland a Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user DaanHoogland commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @blueorangutan test --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Packaging result: ✔centos6 ✔centos7 ✔debian. JID-474 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user DaanHoogland commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @blueorangutan package --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @borisstoyanov thanks. Yes, that explains why there are failures. When I ran my tests, I did it with a system VM built from this PR:

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user borisstoyanov commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill blueorangutan package builds a yum repo from the PR, but it doesn't build new system vms, we'll need to build them manually, build an env with the packages, update the ssvm and

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Rebased against current master to try to fix new issues with tomcat. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I am curious. For the Trillian tests, is a new SystemVM being being built with this PR and that system VM is being used for the test? This PR requires a new system VM template, so if that is

Re: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Sorry, been swamped. I need to fix our Jenkins to support Java 8 to be able to continue validation on Java 8. On Jan 31, 2017 1:48 AM, "rhtyd" wrote: > Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 > > Ping, update on

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Ping, update on this? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Thanks @PaulAngus. I have been side tracked recently. I need to get our Jenkins fixed to be able to build with Java 8 to be able to test the latest rebase to see if anything changed due to that

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user PaulAngus commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I ran the failing test suite against 4.9.2 - and everything passed Test Site 2 Site VPN Across redundant VPCs ... === TestName: test_01_redundant_vpc_site2site_vpn | Status : SUCCESS ===

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Trillian test result (tid-785) Environment: kvm-centos7 (x1), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server 7 Total time taken: 34369 seconds Marvin logs:

Re: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

It is likely my environment. I had some connectivity issues in this envs when I was using them before. I have a pretty recent master in, but I can relate tonight to be sure. Can we kick off your CI to see what yours says? On Jan 21, 2017 2:24 AM, "PaulAngus" wrote: > Github

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user remibergsma commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @PaulAngus Sounds like an old bug? This PR was supposed to fix it and is merged: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1483 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user PaulAngus commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 hi @remibergsma , the design puts the same MAC on the two VPC routers. XenServer doesn't seem to like this. (ESXi hosts give a specific warning). @swill have you pulled in the updated

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user remibergsma commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill OK, check. Shouldn't be dependent on hypervisor type I'd say. Anyway, when I find some time I'll spin master and have a look. All I can say is that we run quite a bunch of them

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @remibergsma last time we tested rvr we had a lot of problems and have not yet been able to adopt it. @pdion891 do you have any details on this? I am not sure if we have tested it recently.

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user remibergsma commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @PaulAngus Out of curiosity, why wouldn't rVPCs work properly on XenServer? As far as I know it works fine, but I may have missed your point. --- If your project is set up for it, you can

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 This set of test was run on KVM. I am not sure of the current state of RVR in general, so I can run this PR again because some of those issues were SSH connectivity issues (which could be env

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user PaulAngus commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Any failures relating to rVPC maybe can't be completely ignored but the design of the rVPC means that it will not work under XenServer or vSphere, so tests will fail under those hypervisors.

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I don't believe any of these issues are related to the StrongSwan feature... --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 ### CI RESULTS ``` Tests Run: 87 Skipped: 1 Failed: 6 Errors: 0 Duration: 9h 25m 26s ``` **Summary of the problem(s):** ```

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I don't think we should try to support non-DH connections since they are security risk. DH should be required. I have made it required in the UI and have added a bunch of additional hashing and

Re: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

I am going to try something today to see if I can try to find a way to support non-DH connections. I will let you know. On Jan 3, 2017 9:02 AM, "rhtyd" wrote: > Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 > > @swill

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill thanks, looking forward to getting this in 4.10. I'm not sure about any side-effects and regressions of the DH-group related change, I think if it's not supported we should remove the

Re: [GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

I will do a final round of testing in the next couple days and squash the commits as you asked. Sorry for the delay. It has been running in prod for the last month or so and it is going well. Strongswan does not support leaving the DH group empty. Should I remove that as an option from the UI

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill @jayapalu updates on this, is this good to go? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill can you squash your commits and use the JIRA id in the commit summary. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @rhtyd yes I know. I am not pushing for this to be in 4.10. I will be pushing for it to go into 4.11 right away, but I know how hard it is to wrap things up as we get close to freeze. Your doing

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Thanks @swill but at this time, the scope of testing this and building a new systemvmtemplate is limited. Given the declared hard freeze, we can target this for 4.11, and I can help with tests

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 We are running this PR as well as #1706 in production and the merge conflict for merging the two PRs together is quite complicated. Because we had to do the merge conflict for our production of

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @jayapalu were you working off the latest version of my PR? I have fixed the issue of the IP being out of order on reboot in this PR. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Rebased again because changes in #1659 caused the fixes to `systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/cs_ip.py` to conflict... --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Rebased against master and fixed merge conflicts... --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user kiwiflyer commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @jayapalu Can you expand on your findings regarding public ip order? Did you pull in the latest PR with the fixes from @swill? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user jayapalu commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @rhtyd While testing this feature public ip order change on reboot issue blocked this. My suggestion is that public ip out of order is different issue. If vpn functionalities working

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill @jayapalu thanks for your work, can you rebase against latest master, fix the conflicts. Also use the JIRA id in the git commit summary. --- If your project is set up for it, you can

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @murali-reddy I have tested with Isolated Guest Networks. The problem that we experienced with the SourceNAT IP not being primary on the public nic if more than one public IP exists does not

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @murali-reddy I will check isolated guest networks today. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user murali-reddy commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @jburwell No, I have fixed issue with static nat on any public IP associated in case of multiple public interfaces. @swill Is there any possibility of public IP going out of order

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user jburwell commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @murali-reddy did you also fix some issues around source NAT? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I have isolated and fixed the issue where the reboot through the API results in the Remote Access VPN no longer working if either a PF rule or Static NAT rule is defined. The problem existed

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I am troubleshooting an issue right now behaves as follows. - I create a VR and connect with the Remote Access VPN and everything works. - I create a Port Forwarding rule on that VR, Remote

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Thanks guys. :) --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so,

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user jayapalu commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill I will test with latest template in the coming week --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 I've built systemvm templates with strongswan here: http://hydra.scale.ninja/strongswan The links/server may be taken down in few weeks. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 Packaging result: ✔centos6 ✔centos7 ✔debian. JID-111 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill I've kicked new systemvmtemplate build jobs based on your PR, I've also included @wido 's systemvm template to include qemu-guest-agent from #1545 :

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @rhtyd a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @blueorangutan package --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @swill we had lost our Jenkins setup, while I've built all I could not get a systemvmbuilder job setup yet, so let me do that first so we can build systemvmtemplates once again. blueorangutan

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1741: Updated StrongSwan VPN Implementation

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1741 @rhtyd & @jburwell this PR requires a new System VM template to function. I have a XenServer test environment which I have been using where I deploy RPMs and the System VM which I build with