Re: [strongSwan] roadwarriors and duplicate LAN subnets

Hi Oleksandr, > May you, please, help me? Disable the duplicheck plugin [1]. Regards, Tobias [1] https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/Duplicheck

[strongSwan] roadwarriors and duplicate LAN subnets

Hello, I use strongswan roadwarrior setup, it works well, but when my employees connect from the same internal IP addresses they receive disconnect: charon: 07[CFG] detected duplicate IKE_SA for '192.168.0.105', triggering delete for old IKE_SA charon: 13[CFG] got a response on a duplicate

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

Thanks for your response Noel. I cannot go to swanctl so have to continue ipsec.conf for now. I changed the config to single subnet: conn m1 type=tunnel authby=secret auto=ignore keyexchange=ikev1 ike=aes128-sha-modp1536! aggressive=no

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

IKEv1 does not support several subnets per side. You need to enumerate all desired combinations in seperate conns. Or just use swanctl, because ipsec is deprecated. Then the configuration is more obvious. Am 20.03.20 um 16:11 schrieb Makarand Pradhan: > Hi All, > > The solution, I mentioned

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

Please provide all information as shown on the HelpRequests[1] page. Then we can go onwards with finding the source of the problem. Kind regards Noel [1] https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/HelpRequests Am 20.03.20 um 16:20 schrieb Makarand Pradhan: > Thanks for your response

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

There is a page at the strongswan site that talks about different options for route-based tunneling (Google it), which is what I think you want... You could tie the IP Xfrm activity to a virtual interface... Vti-based, xfrm-based, or tun-tap based.I think you may want to look at that.Also, is

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

Hi All, The solution, I mentioned earlier is wrong. If I specify the routes explicitly, then the packets go through even with the tunnel down. If the tunnel is up, the packets are encrypted. That is good. So, this issue is still unresolved. Pl do comment. Any advice would be highly

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

One quick question before I send all the logs. Maybe the tunnel is working as expected. Can you pl go through the set up below to confirm that, there is indeed an issue here: Scenario: PC1 - Router1 - Router2 - Tunnel - Router3 - Router4 - PC2 PC1 IP: 10.10.9.3, Network: 10.10.9.0/24 PC2 IP:

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

Please send all the data I asked for. And especially the output of `ipsec statusall`. strongSwan installs all required routes by default. Am 20.03.20 um 18:17 schrieb Makarand Pradhan: > One quick question before I send all the logs. Maybe the tunnel is working as > expected. Can you pl go

Re: [strongSwan] ikeV1 tunnel established but packets are not routed. V2 works.

Tx for the clarification. All information per the wiki is attached. Kind rgds, Makarand Pradhan Senior Software Engineer. iS5 Communications Inc. 5895 Ambler Dr, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5B7 Main Line: +1-844-520-0588 Ext. 129 Direct Line: +1-289-724-2296 Cell: +1-226-501-5666 Fax:+1-289-401-5206