Martin,

Many thanks for your reply! I appreciate it.  

Your answers are very helpful.  To give you some context, we are in an effort 
to support IPsec tunnels with RedHat RHEL 5.3 kernel (2.6.18-128) (I misstyped 
before, it is not 5.2).  And based on your answers, it appears that strongswan 
meets our requirements more than openswan (would you agree based on the 
requirements I had mentioned?), however, is the kernel issue (sha256+esp) 
strongswan specific?  I would tend to think that this would be an issue for all 
Ipsec solutions.

Regarding the bug for "ipsec statusall", I googled and saw an email from 
Johannes that said that RHEL version 5.4 contains the fix for this, however, it 
did not mention the RedHat bug number or the kernel patch.  However, Johannes' 
email from this morning suggests that this fix went into 5.3 (2.6.18-164 or 
earlier).  Is this issue Ipsec issue or a strongswan issue?  BTW, if there is 
any info available on this bug (redhat bug number etc.) or linux kernel patch, 
please let us know so we can try to evaluate how best to apply it.  I have done 
some limited searching for this on RedHat's web site but did not find this bug 
for either the 5.3 (2.6.18-128) or 5.4 kernels.

Regards,

-Deepak


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Willi [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:49 AM
To: Gupta, Deepak (Deepak)
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: [strongSwan] Strongswan support for RHEL5

Hi,

> Ipsec v3 (RFC's 4301 and 4303)

The Linux kernel does not completely support the new IPsec standards. It 
currently does not support Extended Sequence Numbers or Traffic Selector ranges 
(only complete subnets).

> IKEv2
> OCSP (over http) for CRL's and CA management Automatic Keying
> Ike=aes128-sha2_256-modp2048

This is supported by strongSwan.

> Esp=aes128-sha2_256

The Linux kernel uses an incorrect truncation scheme for ESP packets with 
SHA256. You might try to use the patch available at [1] to use the correct 
96-bit truncation.

> 1.   Does strongswan support RHEL5.2 (x86_64 64 bit)?  

It should. There was a bug in earlier RHELs, where querying SAs in the kernel 
immediately deletes them. I don't know if this is still correct for 5.2, but 
you'll see SAs disappearing when running "ipsec statusall".

> 2.   Are there are any known issues for this version of this OS for the
>  IPsec params mentioned above? 

As mentioned.

> 3.   Where can I find rpms for RHEL5?

There are no official RPMs for RHEL. There is currently a discussion about spec 
files on this list, you might want to try one of these.

Regards
Martin

[1]http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/6/5/2039114


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to