Hi Tobias, I am also seeing this UDP_ENCAP error in 5.0.1rc1 on my Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 machine. I did not see it in the 5.0.0 release, so looks like this error is new in 5.0.1 and is happening not only on the FreeBSD: Sep 27 11:44:53 sit-iwf charon: 00[DMN] Starting IKE charon daemon (strongSwan 5.0.1rc1, Linux 2.6.18-238.el5, x86_64) Sep 27 11:44:53 sit-iwf charon: 00[KNL] unable to set UDP_ENCAP: Protocol not available Sep 27 11:44:53 sit-iwf charon: 00[NET] enabling UDP decapsulation failed
Thanks! Zhiheng -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces+zmao=qualcomm....@lists.strongswan.org [mailto:users-bounces+zmao=qualcomm....@lists.strongswan.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Brunner Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:51 AM To: David Shane Holden Cc: users@lists.strongswan.org Subject: Re: [strongSwan] 5.0.1rc1 and FreeBSD Hi David, > The first was some simple compile errors which I think I fixed in the > attached patch. Thanks, applied to master. > On startup I get the following messages: > > 00[DMN] Starting IKE charon daemon (strongSwan 5.0.1rc1, FreeBSD > 9.0-RELEASE-p4, amd64) 00[KNL] unable to set UDP_ENCAP: Invalid > argument 00[NET] enabling UDP decapsulation failed This happens when the NAT-T IPv6 socket is opened and the daemon tries to enable UDP en-/decapsulation for that port. Linux supports this for IPv6, FreeBSD apparently not. The patch at [1] improves the error message if this fails. As long as it works for IPv4 (requires the kernel to be built with the IPSEC_NAT_T option) this should be fine. > 03[NET] received packet: from 192.168.1.201[500] to 192.168.1.1[500] > 03[KNL] 192.168.1.1 is not a local address or the interface is down > 03[NET] received packet from 192.168.1.201[500] to 192.168.1.1[500] on > ignored interface This is caused by a new check for inbound packets which together with the new options charon.interfaces_ignore and charon.interfaces_use allow one to ignore specific interfaces. Unfortunately, the map used for this check in kernel-pfroute was not properly initialized, see [2] for a patch. Actually, the patch at [3] avoids the check altogether if the above options are not used. Regards, Tobias [1] http://git.strongswan.org/?p=strongswan.git;a=commitdiff;h=45178362 [2] http://git.strongswan.org/?p=strongswan.git;a=commitdiff;h=9845391a [3] http://git.strongswan.org/?p=strongswan.git;a=commitdiff;h=2e2feffb _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.strongswan.org https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.strongswan.org https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users
