-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello Daniel,

You need to except traffic that is going to be encapsulated from NAT.
Change "iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE"
to            "iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -m policy --pol none 
--dir out -j MASQUERADE"

Also, don't use bash scripts to configure your firewall. Use iptables-restore 
and iptables-save.
To configure kernel settings, use sysctl and adjust or create new files 
/etc/sysctl.d/ or /etc/sysctl.conf.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Regards,
Noel Kuntze

GPG Key ID: 0x63EC6658
Fingerprint: 23CA BB60 2146 05E7 7278 6592 3839 298F 63EC 6658

Am 20.10.2014 um 21:24 schrieb Levine, Daniel J.:
>
> Hi,
>
> 
>
> I have a successful implementation of ikev2/rw-eap-peap-mschapv2 implemented 
> (10.2.0.0 is remote network, 10.1.0.0 is local network, 10.3.0.0 is VPN 
> tunnel network) in a sandbox with a wireless router acting as a stand-in for 
> the “internet” and my road-warrior devices are Android phones running the 
> StrongSwan client.  The only thing we needed to really do to get it working 
> was to run the nat.sh script found here: http://www.foteviken.de/?p=2175
>
> 
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> 
>
> iptables -F
>
> iptables -t nat -F
>
> iptables -t mangle -F
>
> 
>
> iptables -X
>
> iptables -t nat -X
>
> iptables -t mangle -X
>
> 
>
> echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>
> 
>
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
>
> 
>
> So things were working great in our little sandbox environment.  So then we 
> decided to move out to a bigger network.  We got our IT people to hook the 
> StrongSwan host up in our DMZ and allow the necessary traffic to and from it:
>
> 
>
> Udp/4500
>
> Udp/500
>
> Protocol/50
>
> Protocol/51
>
> 
>
> We needed to change our DMZ side Ethernet interface to use our statically 
> assigned IP address and a netmask slightly different from what we had been 
> using 255.255.255.128 (we were using 255.255.255.0).  We also changed the IP 
> address in /etc/hosts of the StrongSwan host to the new DMZ IP address.  
> Finally, we changed the left= line in ipsec.conf to use the new DMZ static IP 
> address.  We restarted the StrongSwan system.  Then we tried to connect with 
> StrongSwan app on the Android devices from a public Wifi hotspot and it 
> established the tunnel!  So far so good.  Here’s the rub…
>
> 
>
> If we try to ping the phones over the VPN tunnels (10.3.0.1 and 10.3.0.2) 
> from the 10.1.0.0 network, the ping seems to get lost finding the way to 
> 10.3.0.x and comes out in the clear to the DMZ firewall, which probably 
> blocks it/throws it away, since it doesn’t know how to get to 10.3.0.x from 
> there.  Our IT people verified that they see 10.3.0.1 traffic when we do 
> these pings, which I assume they should never see, since it should be getting 
> wrapped up into a nice encrypted packet destined for the phone’s more-real IP 
> address.  I assume StrongSwan knows how to get the data there, since VPN 
> connection stays established (verified using ipsec statusall).  We assumed 
> something was somehow not right in iptables and decided to see if we could 
> see what was going on in there, so we added 2 TRACE lines for raw.  When we 
> do ping –c 1 10.3.0.2, here’s what we see in kernel.log:
>
> 
>
> Jan  1 14:34:29 sc-vpn kernel: [ 9159.661673] TRACE: raw:OUTPUT:policy:2 IN= 
> OUT=eth0 SRC=10.1.0.1 DST=10.3.0.2 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=64500 
> DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=3530 SEQ=1 UID=0 GID=0
>
> Jan  1 14:34:29 sc-vpn kernel: [ 9159.661701] TRACE: mangle:OUTPUT:policy:1 
> IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=10.1.0.1 DST=10.3.0.2 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 
> ID=64500 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=3530 SEQ=1 UID=0 GID=0
>
> Jan  1 14:34:29 sc-vpn kernel: [ 9159.661716] TRACE: nat:OUTPUT:policy:1 IN= 
> OUT=eth0 SRC=10.1.0.1 DST=10.3.0.2 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=64500 
> DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=3530 SEQ=1 UID=0 GID=0
>
> Jan  1 14:34:29 sc-vpn kernel: [ 9159.661732] TRACE: filter:OUTPUT:policy:1 
> IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=10.1.0.1 DST=10.3.0.2 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 
> ID=64500 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=3530 SEQ=1 UID=0 GID=0
>
> Jan  1 14:34:29 sc-vpn kernel: [ 9159.661744] TRACE: 
> mangle:POSTROUTING:policy:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=10.1.0.1 DST=10.3.0.2 LEN=84 
> TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=64500 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=3530 SEQ=1 
> UID=0 GID=0
>
> Jan  1 14:34:29 sc-vpn kernel: [ 9159.661755] TRACE: nat:POSTROUTING:rule:1 
> IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=10.1.0.1 DST=10.3.0.2 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 
> ID=64500 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=3530 SEQ=1 UID=0 GID=0
>
> 
>
> We get no response to the ping.  This works in our sandbox implementation.
>
> 
>
> I should add that we do see 2 iptables rules that StrongSwan inserts (and 
> removes) when each the phone establishes (terminates) a tunnel connection 
> accepting traffic between 10.3.0.1 and 10.1.0.1 and 10.1.0.1 and 10.3.0.1 (as 
> well as the second phone 10.3.0.2 and 10.1.0.1 and 10.1.0.1 and 10.3.0.2).  I 
> can’t recall at the moment if those appear as subnets or actual single IPs.
>
> 
>
> Running route route in both configurations shows what we’d expect with the 
> expected differences because of the different DMZ side.
>
> 
>
> I’m at a loss as to why traffic doesn’t want to go over the VPN connection to 
> the client or come off of it (I’ve tested that as well).
>
> 
>
> How does one debug this?
>
> 
>
> I can provide more output and configuration information, if necessary.  But 
> we are using the mentioned configuration on the StrongSwan server pretty much 
> verbatim.
>
> 
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> 
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=s0DD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Reply via email to