Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

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

IPSEC site to site problem after update

Hi,
after upgrading from version 9.0.x to version 9.1.x my UTM 320,
the VPN (IPSEC) connection does not work.
In the end of the tunnel there si a Sonic Wall not managed.
the log errore now is:


13:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: ignoring Vendor ID payload [404bf439522ca3f6] 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: received Vendor ID payload [XAUTH] 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: ignoring Vendor ID payload [da8e937880010000] 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection] 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: NAT-Traversal: Result using RFC 3947: no NAT detected 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: ignoring informational payload, type IPSEC_INITIAL_CONTACT 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: Peer ID is ID_USER_FQDN: 'vpntest@sophos.com' 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: sent MR3, ISAKMP SA established 
2013:07:22-15:25:20 grh-fw01-1 pluto[16595]: "S_Apn TIM" #32: ignoring informational payload, type INVALID_ID_INFORMATION 


before update the ID information was a empty field, now after update e after contact the sophos support we try with id vpntest@sophos.com on both firewalls. In the SonicWall field l'id is a field email e not FQDN/hostname.

If, leave the field blank the errore is:
The following error "ignoring informational payload, type INVALID_ID_INFORMATION
I'm confused [:S][:S][:S][:S]

Thanks


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • By the way, welcome to the User BB!

    It's strange that all it took to fix the problem was a failover to the Slave.  It makes me wonder if Node 1 has a bad WAN port or bad switch between it and your ISP.  If the problem occurs again when you fail back to Node 1, you should get Sophos Support involved.

    Cheers - Bob
     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Reply
  • By the way, welcome to the User BB!

    It's strange that all it took to fix the problem was a failover to the Slave.  It makes me wonder if Node 1 has a bad WAN port or bad switch between it and your ISP.  If the problem occurs again when you fail back to Node 1, you should get Sophos Support involved.

    Cheers - Bob
     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Children
No Data
Share Feedback
×

Submitted a Tech Support Case lately from the Support Portal?