Hello Tiago,
And, I have moved the route for the VTI to table 220 because it seems to be the right way to config routed based IPSec VPN.[root@arch-linux ~]# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 220: from all lookup 220 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default
Don't do that. 220 is managed by strongSwan. Keep them in the main table.
-A PREROUTING -d 10.10.10.0/30 -c 2352 230776 -j MARK --set-xmark 0x2a/0xffffffff -A OUTPUT -d 10.10.10.0/30 -c 3605 336028 -j MARK --set-xmark 0x2a/0xffffffff
Disable the connmark plugin.
I have added a few more NFLOG captures into my iptables and I am a bit confused with the results. A tcpdump capture in the VTI interface with a ping from the remote ( pfSense - 10.10.10.1 ) shows : No Time Source Destination 1 0.000000 10.10.10.1 10.10.10.2 ICMP 84 Echo (ping) request id=0x9877, seq=471/55041, ttl=64 (reply in 2) 2 0.000038 10.10.10.2 > 10.10.10.1 ICMP 84 Echo (ping) reply id=0x9877, seq=471/55041, ttl=64 (request in 1) I do not see the IPSec MARK in these packets.
They are only visible in the output of the TRACE target. I suspect they are note copied into the buffer passed to the applications.
Also, the NAT chain is not having packets passing through it. [root@arch-linux ~]# snat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT -c 0 0 -P INPUT ACCEPT -c 0 0 -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -c 0 0 -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT -c 0 0 -A PREROUTING -c 0 0 -j NFLOG --nflog-group 9 That is odd cause I am not able to manipulate the packets. I will run a ping from the local Linux (10.10.10.2) and see how the packets are flowing through the iptables chains and will update in another email.
The *nat table is only consulted for the first packet of a connection. Kind regards Noel Am 31.08.21 um 17:22 schrieb Tiago Stoco:
Hi Tobias, First of all, THANKS for replying and clarifying some settings. I have completely disabled the bypass-lan plugin since I do not have a use for it right now. [root@arch-linux ~]# cat /etc/strongswan.conf ... plugins { include strongswan.d/charon/*.conf bypass-lan { load = no } ... And, I have moved the route for the VTI to table 220 because it seems to be the right way to config routed based IPSec VPN. [root@arch-linux ~]# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 220: from all lookup 220 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default [root@arch-linux ~]# ip r s t 220 10.10.10.0/30 via 10.10.10.2 dev ip_vti1 src 10.10.10.2 [root@arch-linux ~]# ip route default via 192.168.45.1 dev ens18 192.168.45.0/24 dev ens18 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.45.30 I am going to add some more details of my configs because the TX Errors NoRoute are still present. 7: ip_vti1@NONE: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 link/ipip 192.168.45.30peer 192.168.45.10promiscuity 0 minmtu 0 maxmtu 0 vti remote 192.168.45.10 local 192.168.45.30 ikey 0.0.0.42 okey 0.0.0.42 numtxqueues 1 numrxqueues 1 gso_max_size 65536 gso_max_segs 65535 inet 10.10.10.2peer 10.10.10.1/32 scope global ip_vti1 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::5efe:c0a8:2d1e/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever I can also see that the IPSec added some rules to MARK packets in my iptables. -A PREROUTING -d 10.10.10.0/30 -c 2352 230776 -j MARK --set-xmark 0x2a/0xffffffff -A OUTPUT -d 10.10.10.0/30 -c 3605 336028 -j MARK --set-xmark 0x2a/0xffffffff The counters confirms that the packets are being marked. I am not sure if I should keep the MARK in iptables or remove it allowing routing decisions to send the packets to the VTI device that will MARK the packets but according to my understanding it should not matter. [root@arch-linux ~]# ip xfrm policy src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 socket in priority 0 ptype main src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 socket out priority 0 ptype main src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 socket in priority 0 ptype main src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 socket out priority 0 ptype main src ::/0 dst ::/0 socket in priority 0 ptype main src ::/0 dst ::/0 socket out priority 0 ptype main src ::/0 dst ::/0 socket in priority 0 ptype main src ::/0 dst ::/0 socket out priority 0 ptype main Above are the policies installed. Again, because it is a routed base VPN seems correct. [root@arch-linux ~]# ip xfrm state src 192.168.45.30 dst 192.168.45.10 proto esp spi 0xc2239b57 reqid 1 mode tunnel replay-window 0 flag af-unspec mark 0x2a/0xffffffff aead rfc4106(gcm(aes)) 0x264acee3119a4e523af2fbf5905b50c5acc1f7be9079ff23ffa2c6473a9c507fe1ae936b 128 anti-replay context: seq 0x0, oseq 0x0, bitmap 0x00000000 src 192.168.45.10 dst 192.168.45.30 proto esp spi 0xc661b9e5 reqid 1 mode tunnel replay-window 32 flag af-unspec aead rfc4106(gcm(aes)) 0x69a86fa6ca9448bece6ffdff77893f0e9ce5ebef604040f681b5cdd2d5976438ed005df1 128 anti-replay context: seq 0x656, oseq 0x0, bitmap 0xffffffff I have added a few more NFLOG captures into my iptables and I am a bit confused with the results. A tcpdump capture in the VTI interface with a ping from the remote ( pfSense - 10.10.10.1 ) shows : No Time Source Destination 1 0.000000 10.10.10.1 10.10.10.2 ICMP 84 Echo (ping) request id=0x9877, seq=471/55041, ttl=64 (reply in 2) 2 0.000038 10.10.10.2 > 10.10.10.1 ICMP 84 Echo (ping) reply id=0x9877, seq=471/55041, ttl=64 (request in 1) I do not see the IPSec MARK in these packets. The reply packets end up in the OUTPUT chain marked but not encrypted as an ESP packet. By the way I do not see the replies even being encapsulated at all by IPSec. Also, the NAT chain is not having packets passing through it. [root@arch-linux ~]# snat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT -c 0 0 -P INPUT ACCEPT -c 0 0 -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -c 0 0 -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT -c 0 0 -A PREROUTING -c 0 0 -j NFLOG --nflog-group 9 That is odd cause I am not able to manipulate the packets. I will run a ping from the local Linux (10.10.10.2) and see how the packets are flowing through the iptables chains and will update in another email. In the meantime, if someone sees something that I am missing. Please let me know. Many Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Tobias Brunner <tob...@strongswan.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 31, 2021 5:51 AM *To:* Tiago Stoco <tmsbl...@msn.com>; users@lists.strongswan.org <users@lists.strongswan.org> *Subject:* Re: [strongSwan] IPSec route based VPN - VTI interface TX Errors NoRoute Hi Tiago,Pings from the Linux system are being seem as errors NoRoute by the tunnel. > ... Shunted Connections: Bypass LAN 10.10.10.0/30: 10.10.10.0/30 === 10.10.10.0/30 PASSThe reason is most likely this passthrough IPsec policy installed by the bypass-lan plugin for the subnet that is reachable (according to the main routing table) via ip_vti1. For a ping from 10.10.10.2 to 10.10.10.1, the VTI interface won't find an IPsec policy to protect the packet (the passthrough policy has a higher priority), so it gets dropped. To avoid that, either install the routes via VTI in table 220 (which is ignored by the bypass-lan plugin automatically), exclude the VTI interface explicitly via charon.plugins.bypass-lan.interfaces_ignore, or just disable the bypass-lan plugin completely if you don't need it. Regards, Tobias
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
