Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-03-03 Thread Hans Hoexer
Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: @0 C set [Phase 1]:Default=peer-default force C set [peer-default]:Phase=1 force C set [peer-default]:Authentication=2 force C set [peer-default]:Configuration=mm-default force C set [peer-default]:ID=me.mylan.net-ID

Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-03-03 Thread Diana Eichert
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Hans Hoexer wrote: Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: @0 C set [Phase 1]:Default=peer-default force C set [peer-default]:Phase=1 force C set [peer-default]:Authentication=2 force C set [peer-default]:Configuration=mm-default

isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-02-22 Thread Stuart Henderson
I've just been looking at setting up ipsec with multiple endpoints (zyxel 661h, fwiw: the basic connectivity is ok, though I am growing to loathe their web gui and lack of plaintext config). It would be convenient not to wire the remote peers down to static IP addresses, but if I do something

Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-02-22 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2007/02/22 19:38, jared r r spiegel wrote: On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: obviously having the same names, the first is overwritten by the second. Would I be totally going down the wrong route if I were to change the hardcoded -default and default-