Responding to some but not all of these things for now:

On 20/09/2016 1:44 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Reuben Farrelly wrote:

I've been experimenting today with Vti based configuration and run into a few problems.

Thanks for testing the VTI support!

1. The first problem is when the IPSec completes negotiation. As soon as the IPsec connects up, I lose all IPv4 access to the remote box. This is made even worse because the public route to the client is also wiped out, so the IPsec session basically kills the connectivity to the box including that of the IPsec session due to a recursive routing loop and more specific /1's for the global routing table:

lightning ~ # ip route
0.0.0.0/1 dev vti01  scope link  src 192.168.6.1  mtu 1438
default via 139.162.51.1 dev eth0  metric 3
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo  scope host
127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo
128.0.0.0/1 dev vti01  scope link  src 192.168.6.1  mtu 1438
139.162.51.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 139.162.51.249
lightning ~ #

Even with: vti-routing=no I still see these routes appear, and experience this problem.

That's odd. with vti-routing=no there should be no VTI specific routing
changes?

There is.

Here's after a clean reboot:

lightning ~ # ip route
default via 139.162.51.1 dev eth0  metric 3
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo  scope host
127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo
139.162.51.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 139.162.51.249
lightning ~ #

The VTI won't come up though. It fails, as towards the end of the negotiation the box loses connectivity with the peer and from the Cisco's perspective never completes negotiation - so I had to add a route to cover the peer's public subnet:

1.0.0.0/8 via 139.162.51.1 dev eth0

And then the vti comes up on both ends.

What the Cisco does in this situation and what I would expect libreswan to do is to install a host route to the peer so that when the default route changes (or when those /1 routes are inserted) we still have connectivity with the host and can complete the negotiation.

Here's the routing table after the vti comes up:

lightning pluto # ip route
0.0.0.0/1 dev vti01  scope link  src 192.168.6.1  mtu 1438
default via 139.162.51.1 dev eth0  metric 3
1.0.0.0/8 via 139.162.51.1 dev eth0
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo  scope host
127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo
128.0.0.0/1 dev vti01  scope link  src 192.168.6.1  mtu 1438
139.162.51.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 139.162.51.249
lightning pluto #

This is with vti-routing=no set.

There is no route for 192.168.6.2 (the client side) but even if I add one I still get no data flow and error counts increasing on each packet received.

Still don't know why that 0.0.0.0/1 route is being put there though.

You seem to have the "half routes" 0/1 and 128/1 installed via the vti
device. Those are most certainly wrong, but I'm not sure why those were
installed.

2. What I would ideally like to do is have a tunnel interface on the Cisco, and number it with 192.168.6.2/30. Ideally then on the Libreswan box I would set 192.168.6.1/30 which would give me a proper traditional numbered link. I only need connectivity across the directly connected subnet (don't want or need any other routes to be reachable just yet - I'm NATting for this purpose in the meantime).

Yes we are adding a leftvti= and rightvti= option to allow updown to
configure and ip address on the created vti device.

That'll take care of the routing bit nicely I think.

The Cisco insists on 0.0.0.0/0 as the src and dst proxy IDs for these sorts of VTI connections on it's side.

It should work fine to set leftsubnet=0.0.0.0/0 and
rightsubnet=0.0.0.0/0 as long as you set mark="5" or some uniqu number.
The marking should prevent anything from being directed into the xfrm
path per default unless it was pointed to the VTI device.

I'm using mark=12/0xffffff in the config. I tried using markin= and markout= as well but those commands were rejected as invalid.

How would I configure Libreswan to work in this way? [This would allow me to match the config I have on the other IPsec Palo Alto head end, and consistency is a great thing!]

Currently, just manually configure the IP address in updown?

3. I am seeing packets leave the Cisco across the Cisco Tunnel interface, and I am seeing these packets enter the Libreswan vti. However every single one of them is being dropped:

lightning pluto # ifconfig vti01
vti01: flags=193<UP,RUNNING,NOARP>  mtu 1428
        tunnel   txqueuelen 1  (IPIP Tunnel)
        RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
        RX errors 5257  dropped 5257  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 2236  bytes 568568 (555.2 KiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

lightning pluto #

The TX packets were from me doing pings from the head end. The Cisco never sees any packets input but sees lots of packets output.

Tested without iptables as well, so that isn't the issue.

What would cause this?

Not sure. You can check /proc/net/xfrm_stat but I guess it would be
packets not within scope? Are you sure you configured a leftsubnet and
rightsubnet of 0/0 ?

Curiously there is no such entry in /proc:

lightning pluto # ls -la /proc/net/xf*
ls: cannot access '/proc/net/xf*': No such file or directory
lightning pluto #

Or did you not setup the IP on the vti interface and therefor have no
default route (as it is supposed to be over the tunnel) ?

I have but still no joy:

vti01: flags=193<UP,RUNNING,NOARP>  mtu 1428
        inet 192.168.6.1  netmask 255.255.255.255
        tunnel   txqueuelen 1  (IPIP Tunnel)
        RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
        RX errors 9939  dropped 9939  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 3562  bytes 1352092 (1.2 MiB)
        TX errors 158  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 120  collisions 38

4. Possibly related to (3) are these two tunnel types actually the same?

22: vti01@NONE: <NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1428 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1
    link/ipip 139.162.51.249 brd 0.0.0.0

What does "ip tun" say?

lightning pluto # ip tunnel
gre0: gre/ip remote any local any ttl inherit nopmtudisc
sit0: ipv6/ip remote any local any ttl 64 nopmtudisc
ip_vti0: ip/ip remote any local any ttl inherit nopmtudisc key 0
vti01: ip/ip remote any local 139.162.51.249 ttl inherit key 12
tunl0: ip/ip remote any local any ttl inherit nopmtudisc
lightning pluto #

and on the Cisco:

router-2#show int tun 1
Tunnel1 is up, line protocol is up
  Hardware is Tunnel
  Description: Libreswan site-to-site IKEv2 VPN
  Internet address is 192.168.6.2/32
  MTU 17862 bytes, BW 256 Kbit/sec, DLY 50000 usec,
     reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
  Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
  Keepalive not set
  Tunnel linestate evaluation up
  Tunnel source 10.100.37.15 (Cellular0), destination 139.162.51.249
   Tunnel Subblocks:
      src-track:
         Tunnel1 source tracking subblock associated with Cellular0
Set of tunnels with source Cellular0, 2 members (includes iterators), on interface <OK>
  Tunnel protocol/transport IPSEC/IP

So one is IP/IP and the other is IPSEC/IP.  Is this expected?

I don't know how cisco shows that internally....

It shows as differently to IP/IP however it might only show differently as IP/IP would have an inner tunnel not encrypted but IP/IPSEC is. Not sure...it's definitely a different type of tunnel in terms of Cisco config though.

Reuben

_______________________________________________
Swan mailing list
Swan@lists.libreswan.org
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan

Reply via email to