Thanks Noel however the addressing is dictated by the remote side (AWS) and is appropriate in this scenario. I am not trying to route over it I am testing connectivity across the directly connected link.
It should reply as it does on other StrongSwan deployments, im not sure if its an underlying linux issue or a misconfiguration in the way I have done the VTI configuration. Any thoughts? On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Noel Kuntze <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hello Tom > > # ip route | grep 169.254.253.4 > > 169.254.253.4/30 <http://169.254.253.4/30> dev vti2 proto kernel > scope link src 169.254.253.6 > 169.254.0.0/16 is a link-local network. It is not supposed to be routed. > Please check the TTL on the packets and test with a normal private network. > > - -- > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind Regards, > Noel Kuntze > > GPG Key ID: 0x63EC6658 > Fingerprint: 23CA BB60 2146 05E7 7278 6592 3839 298F 63EC 6658 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV2xeRAAoJEDg5KY9j7GZYLloQAJpsNYI5J/bOGSPGsnHX70tB > c8PPW8QNbaQz93vGtlmJA24d/8xKTMN0iLnid46o5ugQ5yFEFWj+pOCXwPRNAPyQ > KdOd6OvEBhLNgZOrvtg+VG3jk/PkZr0dUBiXw2yC7HLVsTyObIVzyiUPDdc5N3tA > KbhyUsQ9ftXcWqD74flpnFwzmez8DzI2lbE9KhLZcmKvnKdA1oRu9c40KCvbXqY8 > 6eTRtdkjQgJDTXtWow8xvyqpKUAG2H3V9u+7tS4y0JOytJapXN9Z/n5Bee6f8L17 > 1ZkHKzUYfT/oPH8cVeuaeVd9+Zwa1q/od8pDzV9s7h0zj7ufERmPC6Rp5zsBq8Cv > Bjas7vyAPhy4/eAFNKvi1JHKqsQQt4q0SmTvUt5Wz3rFC5KtPeIiq4/pd3SuqHm+ > Ptdm6S9HuUTkprmtFBvRcRE2ZJ6j0aLhiSg7bqIbnTHasCd5UuIIGmEl5t2Z8vip > +e89aiLG0j7TMnv8s0V7LqQWeys8OGIIakJs+GXftwf9a9GrAOFGa4xWEU+qKVpU > Xfu8fVqtuVYdHIkqT6ma8EwjOOks4Egs4nw3rWwLlWrz10gZFh9nSRU+QpMIWe0P > 5vnqk7Wt34UWpDWGnKV/wREQIc73Voez6IVGz/jnDldNRtXyS9UebZO1mXxloqTE > +tyfHiPMZSfZwMVZm+0V > =+nAq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users
