Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 1002 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

Troubleshooting Roadwarrior setup

SalishSwede
I've setup a a vpn connection and am trying to connect to it from a Win95 client.  I get no connections and cannot determine what the logs mean.  Can anyone help with this?

There seems to be two different sorts of errors:

Type 1:
2007:05:06-04:20:57 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[1] 72.144.96.214 #1: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer 72.144.96.214
2007:05:06-04:20:57 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[1] 72.144.96.214 #1: NAT-Traversal: Result using draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02/03: peer is NATed
2007:05:06-04:20:57 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[1] 72.144.96.214 #1: next payload type of ISAKMP Identification Payload has an unknown value: 24
2007:05:06-04:20:57 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[1] 72.144.96.214 #1: probable authentication failure (mismatch of preshared secrets?): malformed payload in packet
2007:05:06-04:20:57 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[1] 72.144.96.214 #1: sending encrypted notification PAYLOAD_MALFORMED to 72.144.96.214:500



and Type 2:
2007:05:06-04:42:58 (none) pluto[3849]: packet from 66.50.204.18:500: ignoring Vendor ID payload [MS NT5 ISAKMPOAKLEY 00000004]
2007:05:06-04:42:58 (none) pluto[3849]: packet from 66.50.204.18:500: ignoring Vendor ID payload [FRAGMENTATION]
2007:05:06-04:42:58 (none) pluto[3849]: packet from 66.50.204.18:500: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02_n]
2007:05:06-04:42:58 (none) pluto[3849]: packet from 66.50.204.18:500: ignoring Vendor ID payload [Vid-Initial-Contact]
2007:05:06-04:42:58 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer 66.50.204.18
2007:05:06-04:42:59 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: NAT-Traversal: Result using draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02/03: no NAT detected
2007:05:06-04:43:00 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: next payload type of ISAKMP Identification Payload has an unknown value: 89
2007:05:06-04:43:00 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: probable authentication failure (mismatch of preshared secrets?): malformed payload in packet
2007:05:06-04:43:00 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: sending encrypted notification PAYLOAD_MALFORMED to 66.50.204.18:500
2007:05:06-04:43:01 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: next payload type of ISAKMP Identification Payload has an unknown value: 89
2007:05:06-04:43:01 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: probable authentication failure (mismatch of preshared secrets?): malformed payload in packet
2007:05:06-04:43:01 (none) pluto[3849]: "D_REF_gumhZKGsWt_1"[2] 66.50.204.18 #2: sending encrypted notification PAYLOAD_MALFORMED to 66.50.204.18:500

etc.. etc...

Help anyone?

Thanks,

~D

PS:  I'm going to reset the passwords and try again.  We'll see what happens.


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    I notice when I set the preshared key in the L2TP VPN setup, I do NOT get the green "success" message to the left of the "APPLY" button.  Is this significant?  Actually, I find that one cannot rely on this sort of message happening at all.   Sometimes it appears, sometimes it does not.  The user interface leave no clue as to whether one should expect this validation.


    Poor design?
Reply
  • 0
    I notice when I set the preshared key in the L2TP VPN setup, I do NOT get the green "success" message to the left of the "APPLY" button.  Is this significant?  Actually, I find that one cannot rely on this sort of message happening at all.   Sometimes it appears, sometimes it does not.  The user interface leave no clue as to whether one should expect this validation.


    Poor design?
Children
No Data
Cookie Information Banner