Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • +6 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 165 replies
  • Answers 3 answers
  • Subscribers 55 subscribers
  • Views 525259 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Release of v17 MR-2?

Steppenwolf

Hej,

now that MR-1 has appeared, I wanted to ask when MR-2 will appear? The problems and instabilities of IPSec in v17 (especially in connection with V16.5) are very annoying.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Just a quick update. I've been working with the GES team, but so far no changes. I was able to upgrade to MR3 and they got the tunnel to establish. It ran for almost a week and then started disconnecting every few hours. High availability completely breaks the tunnel.

     

    The thing that still seems to work, even though it shouldn't, is that if I switch the ipsec profile from Main Mode to Aggressive Mode the tunnel becomes more stable and will only disconnect about once a day rather than every few hours. This is strange because the ASA on the other end is set to Main Mode, and the vpn profile is not even supposed to be compatible with Aggressive Mode. It actually makes the selection list on tunnel profile blank. So this appears to be a definite bug. We're discussing switching back to Cisco. This issue has become a deal breaker for us.

     

    Anyone else had any luck?

  • 0 in reply to RyanDonohue

    We're in the same boat.  Not an ASA but connecting to a Cisco Router at HQ.   Disconnects multiple times a day.  In our case the tunnel loses some of it's SA's that get established. Out of 9 SA's  that are part of the tunnel only one or two show green in the vpn connection and the site goes down. A reconnect will re-establish it, but what a pain in the butt. 

     

    If anyone as a rock solid VPN connection to  a cisco device I would love to know what configuration you're using.   

     

    -Scott

     

  • 0 in reply to Scott_D_L

    Exact same problem here. We have 20 SA's though. When it drops I usually have to reconnect it multiple times because only a few SA's will come up together.

  • 0 in reply to RyanDonohue

    Ryan,

     

    Out of curiosity, do you have overlapping networks between local and remote side of the ipsec connection by chance?  For for example:

     

    Lets say at the branch office where the sophos is  I've got a 192.168.100.X/24  as the local LAN subnet that's behind the XG. Then on the remote side of the ipsec(cisco at HQ)  we've got a 192.168.0.0/16 setup on the cisco.   I was just wondering if there's an issue with those overlapping subnets on either end of the connection.  I've seen some posts on some of the Strongswan boards about this, but nothing that mentions that the SA's drop off, more of routing issues than anything else.

    Thanks,

    -Scott

Reply
  • 0 in reply to RyanDonohue

    Ryan,

     

    Out of curiosity, do you have overlapping networks between local and remote side of the ipsec connection by chance?  For for example:

     

    Lets say at the branch office where the sophos is  I've got a 192.168.100.X/24  as the local LAN subnet that's behind the XG. Then on the remote side of the ipsec(cisco at HQ)  we've got a 192.168.0.0/16 setup on the cisco.   I was just wondering if there's an issue with those overlapping subnets on either end of the connection.  I've seen some posts on some of the Strongswan boards about this, but nothing that mentions that the SA's drop off, more of routing issues than anything else.

    Thanks,

    -Scott

Children
  • 0 in reply to Scott_D_L

    Nothing like that as far as I can tell. Some of our internal subnets do overlap with subnets that that company on the other end uses internally, but none of those are in this vpn profile. But because of that overlap we do have to nat everything on our end. I originally thought something with the nat'ing might be the cause, but after seeing so many others having the same issue that doesn't seem to be the case. But GES has looked over the nat and subnets and doesn't see any issues with the config as far as those are concerned.