Hi Community,
I am currently working on a Site-to-Site VPN were I have to to NAT the server, being able to access the remote network using an public IP-address.
Since Keep-Alive is not used for this VPN-connection, I also deactivated Dead Peer detection
The network object included in this configuration consist of:
local VPN-gateway: 217.x.y.z
remote VPN-gateway: 136.x.y.z
Public IP-address: 201.x.y.z
The current configuration of network objects relevant for this Site-to-Site VPN is
SNAT-rule for Site-to-Site VPN-connection
===========================
Traffic source: server in local network (single host)
Traffic service: any
Traffic destination: 136.x.y.z
NAT mode: SNAT (source)
Source:201.x.y.z
Automatic packet filter rule: Yes
IPSec-Connection
===========
Remote gateway: 136.x.y.z
local Interface: 217.x.y.z
Policy: custom Policy (WPA2-PSK)
Auto packet filter: Yes
strict routing: No
In the remote gateway configuration, the VPN ID Type is set to "IP address", but left empty.
The log file produced looks as follows:
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: listening for IKE messages
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found lo with address 127.0.0.1
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found eth0 with address 192.168.x.y
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found eth1 with address 217.y.z.82
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found eth1 with address 217.y.z.84
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found eth1 with address 217.y.z.85
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found eth2 with address 192.168.0.253
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found eth4 with address 217.y.z.83
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found ipsec0 with address x.y.z.82
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found ipsec1 with address x.y.z.83
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | found tun0 with address 10.x.y.z
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | IP interface tun0 10.x.y.z has no matching ipsec* interface -- ignored
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: adding interface ipsec1/eth4 217.x.y.83:500
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: adding interface ipsec1/eth4 217.7.173.83:4500
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | IP interface eth2 192.168.x.y has no matching ipsec* interface -- ignored
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | IP interface eth1217.y.z.85 has no matching ipsec* interface -- ignored
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | IP interface eth1217.y.z.84 has no matching ipsec* interface -- ignored
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | IP interface eth0 192.168.x.y has no matching ipsec* interface -- ignored
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | IP interface lo 127.0.0.1 has no matching ipsec* interface -- ignored
...
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: loaded shared key for 217.y.z.83
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: loaded shared key for 136.x.y.z 217.y.z.83
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: loaded shared key for 136.x.y.z 217.y.z.83
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: loaded shared key for 136.x.y.z x.y.z.83
...
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | /32===217.x.y.83...136.x.y.z===
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | ike_life: 86400s; ipsec_life: 3600s; rekey_margin: 540s; rekey_fuzz: 100%; keyingtries: 0; policy: PSK+ENCRYPT+TUNNEL
...
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | inserting event EVENT_SO_DISCARD, timeout in 0 seconds for #118841
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | Queuing pending Quick Mode with 136.1.1.51 "S_Site2Site-VPN"
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: "S_Site2Site-VPN" #118841: initiating Main Mode
...
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | next event EVENT_RETRANSMIT in 10 seconds for #118841
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: |
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | *received whack message
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | from whack: got --esp=aes256-sha1
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | alg_info_parse_str() ealg_buf=aes aalg_buf=sha1eklen=256 aklen=0
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | enum_search_prefix () calling enum_search(0x80c4584, "ESP_AES")
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | parser_alg_info_add() ealg_getbyname("aes")=12
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | enum_search_prefix () calling enum_search(0x80c4718, "AUTH_ALGORITHM_HMAC_SHA1")
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | parser_alg_info_add() aalg_getbyname("sha1")=2
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | __alg_info_esp_add() ealg=12 aalg=2 cnt=1
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | esp string values: 12_256-2,
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | from whack: got --ike=aes256-sha-modp1024
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | alg_info_parse_str() ealg_buf=aes aalg_buf=shaeklen=256 aklen=0
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | enum_search_prefix () calling enum_search(0x80c47b8, "OAKLEY_AES")
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | enum_search_ppfixi () calling enum_search(0x80c47b8, "OAKLEY_AES_CBC")
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | parser_alg_info_add() ealg_getbyname("aes")=7
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | parser_alg_info_add() aalg_getbyname("sha")=2
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | enum_search_prefix () calling enum_search(0x80c47f8, "OAKLEY_GROUP_MODP1024")
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | parser_alg_info_add() modp_getbyname("modp1024")=2
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | __alg_info_ike_add() ealg=7 aalg=2 modp_id=2, cnt=1
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | ike string values: 7_256-2-2,
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | alg_info_addref() alg_info->ref_cnt=1
2011:04:21-15:06:11 srvfirewall pluto[4248]: | alg_info_addref() alg_info->ref_cnt=1
Nothing whatsoever of the SNAT-rule shows up in the log, so I guess there is something wrong with the way I set this configuration up.
Could anybody give me a hint on howe to troubleshoot this issue?
Thank you very much in advance.
Regards
Tobias
This thread was automatically locked due to age.