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

Hello Sumit,

Yes, that is possible by using a database pool. See [1] for information about 
that.
However, that is the best solution for same IPs including server reboots.
If you  use uniqueids=replace, you can force replacement of unique IDs, so
new IKE SAs from a peer replace the old one. That could fix it.
You completely understood the situation that was caused by the unclean
shutdown of the connection.

[1] http://www.strongswan.org/uml/testresults/sql/ip-pool-db/index.html

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Regards,
Noel Kuntze

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

Am 10.02.2015 um 11:11 schrieb Kaur, Sumit (NSN - IN/Bangalore):
> Hi Noel,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
>
> I have another query this time.
>
>
> Is it possible to restrict that a client get same virtual IP from Server 
> based static pool - always in all scenarios including client reboot?
>
>
> I simulated a scenario where a client has initially got a virtual IP from 
> server and later it went for reboot without the server getting notified about 
> it.
> As soon as the client comes up after reboot, the server assigned a different 
> virtual IP from the static pool to the client.
>
> In this case, since the server was not notified about client going down, the 
> lease was still active at server, and then later when client came up and 
> asked for virtual IP, server gave a different one and also updated the lease 
> with this new assigned Virtual IP.
>
>
>
> Is this expected behavior?
>
> I tried putting uniqueIds=yes at both ends. This does not help.
>
>
> Thanks
> Sumit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Noel Kuntze
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:05 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [strongSwan] Issues observed with Server leases in road warrior 
> configuration
>
>
> Hello Kaur,
>
> That is caused by your configured uniqueness policy.
> Try uniqueids=replace in config setup section of ipsec.conf
>
> Also, strongSwan will never assign an active lease twice.
> That would cause ambiguous routing and is disallowed by the kernel and sanity.
>
> If strongSwan thinks the client disconnected, then it _is_ disconnected. The 
> server has
> the full interpretational sovereignty over this. If a client thinks it is 
> still connected,
> then something went awfully wrong on the client side and you should see if
> you can use dpd or a newer client software.
>
> strongSwan handles the complete IKE negotiation with a client
> and installs the policies by itself. The kernel will not allow duplicate 
> policies.
> It will reject installing such policies that are identical to already 
> existing ones.
>
> In your roadwarrior setup with a virtual IP, the policy covers the virtual IP 
> and the 40.0.0.1/32 IP.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Regards,
> Noel Kuntze
>
> GPG Key ID: 0x63EC6658
> Fingerprint: 23CA BB60 2146 05E7 7278 6592 3839 298F 63EC 6658
>
> Am 04.02.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Kaur, Sumit (NSN - IN/Bangalore):
> > Hi,
>
> > When configuring road warrior as below in  strongswan version 4.3.6, we 
> > observe an odd behavior w.r.t the Server leases.
>
>
> > Server :-
>
> > conn r1~v1
> >          left=40.0.0.1
> >         right=%any
> >         leftsubnet=40.0.0.1/32
> >         rightsourceip=99.0.0.0/30
> >         authby=secret
> >         leftid=40.0.0.1
> >         rightid=%any
>
>
> > Client :-
>
> > conn r1~v1
> >         left=25.0.0.2
> >         right=40.0.0.1
> >         leftsourceip=%config
> >         rightsubnet=40.0.0.1/32
> >         authby=secret
> >         leftid=25.0.0.2
> >         rightid=%any
>
>
>
> > The Server assigns all IPs from its pool to connecting client r1~v1, if 
> > r1~v1 connects to it several times, but maintains only the latest virtual 
> > ip address entry in the lease. The client has multiple xfrm policies 
> > corresponding to all virtual IPs assigned.
>
> > # ipsec leases
> > Leases in pool 'r1~v1', usage: 1/3, 1 online
> >          99.0.0.1   online   '(vr*)25.0.0.2'
>
> > # ipsec leases
> > Leases in pool 'r1~v1', usage: 1/3, 1 online
> >          99.0.0.2   online   '(vr*)25.0.0.2'
>
>
>
> > Deleting r1~v1 connection from client, disables the lease from the server, 
> > but the client does not delete all virtual IPs and has the respective xfrm 
> > policies still in kernel.
>
> > # ipsec leases
> > Leases in pool 'r1~v1', usage: 1/3, 0 online
> >          99.0.0.2   offline   '(vr*)25.0.0.2'
>
>
> > Client side :
>
> > # ip xfrm policy
> > 40.0.0.1/32[0] 99.0.0.2/32[0]
> >         upspec 1 dev (none) uid 0
> >         in  allow index 0x00001208 priority 1678 share any flags 0x00000000
> >         tmpl-1:
> >           40.0.0.1 25.0.0.2
> >                 esp spi 0(0x00000000) reqid 4 tunnel
> >                 level required share any algo-mask:E=32, A=32, C=32
> >         fpid 0x000000a4
> >         policy type main
> > 99.0.0.2/32[0] 40.0.0.1/32[0]
> >         upspec 1 dev (none) uid 0
> >         out allow index 0x00001201 priority 1678 share any flags 0x00000000
> >         tmpl-1:
> >           25.0.0.2 40.0.0.1
> >                 esp spi 0(0x00000000) reqid 4 tunnel
> >                 level required share any algo-mask:E=32, A=32, C=32
> >         fpid 0x000000a3
> >         policy type main
>
>
> > It is possible in this scenario, that server gives 99.0.0.2 virtual ip 
> > address to a new connection(it assumes 99.0.0.2 is offline), but 99.0.0.2 
> > is still present on a previous connection.
>
>
> > The above behavior seems to be incorrect. Ideally, at first place itself, 
> > server should not assign different virtual IPs to the same client even if 
> > the client tries to connect to it several times.
>
> > Can someone provide inputs on this.
>
> > Thanks
> > Sumit
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=TJ6h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Reply via email to