This is iked (IKEv2). No patches, plain from dist.

On Oct 13, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Johan Ryberg wrote:

> 2011/10/13 Maxim Bourmistrov <m...@alumni.chalmers.se>:
>> Hi misc@,
>>
>> I'm trying to understand why my IPSec tunnel not functioning as expected
and
>> especially
>> why packets start flow as soon as I start to ping from the opposite side.
>>
>> Hopefully someone can explain what is going on and why.
>>
>> Following setup:
>>
>> Network Home(1.1.1.0/25) connecting to the network office(2.2.2.0/21) via
an
>> IPSec tunnel.
>> Gw at Home-side is an OpenBSD 4.9-stable. Gw at Office OpenBSD 5.0-current
in
>> a CARP(failover) setup.
>>
>> gw at home IP: 10.1.1.1
>> gw at office IP: 20.1.1.1(CARP iface. gw1: 20.1.1.2 gw2: 20.1.1.3)
>>
>> CARP, eg. failover part, is working fine.
>>
>> Following iked.conf I have.
>>
>> Home gw:
>> local_gw="10.1.1.1"
>> remote_gw="20.1.1.1"
>>
>> ikev2 "homeNET_to_officeNET" active esp \
>>        from $local_gw to $remote_gw \
>>        from 1.1.1.0/25 to 2.2.2.0/21 \
>>        local $local_gw peer $remote_gw \
>>        srcid $local_gw \
>>        dstid $remote_gw
>>
>> Office gw:
>> local_gw="20.1.1.1"
>> remote_gw="10.1.1.1"
>>
>> ikev2 "officeNET_to_homeNET" passive esp \
>>        from $local_gw to $remote_gw \
>>        from 2.2.2.0/21 to 1.1.1.0/25 \
>>        local $local_gw peer $remote_gw \
>>        srcid $local_gw \
>>        dstid $remote_gw
>>
>>
>> Tunnel gets established.
>>
>> On office-gw I see
>> sa_state: VALID -> ESTABLISHED from 10.1.1.1:500 to 20.1.1.2:500 policy
>> 'officeNET_to_homeNET'
>> Note, that the IP-address is actually not one on CARP iface, but rather
from
>> physical iface.
>>
>> ipsecctl -s all gives:
>> FLOWS:
>> flow esp in from 10.1.1.1 to 20.1.1.1 peer 10.1.1.1 srcid IPV4/20.1.1.1
dstid
>> IPV4/10.1.1.1 type use
>> flow esp out from 20.1.1.1 to 10.1.1.1 peer 10.1.1.1 srcid IPV4/20.1.1.1
dstid
>> IPV4/10.1.1.1 type require
>> flow esp in from 1.1.1.0/25 to 2.2.2.0/21 peer 10.1.1.1 srcid
IPV4/20.1.1.1
>> dstid IPV4/10.1.1.1 type use
>> flow esp out from 2.2.2.0/21 to 1.1.1.0/25 peer 10.1.1.1 srcid
IPV4/20.1.1.1
>> dstid IPV4/10.1.1.1 type require
>>
>> SAD:
>> ---> esp tunnel from 20.1.1.2 to 10.1.1.1 spi 0x2d2a6151 auth
hmac-sha2-256
>> enc aes-256
>> esp tunnel from 10.1.1.1 to 20.1.1.2 spi 0x5152256e auth hmac-sha2-256 enc
>> aes-256
>>
>>
>> On home-gw I see
>> sa_state: VALID -> ESTABLISHED from 20.1.1.1:57185 to 10.1.1.1:500 policy
>> 'policy1'
>>
>> ipsecctl -s all gives:
>> FLOWS:
>> flow esp in from 2.2.2.0/21 to 1.1.1.0/25 peer 20.1.1.1 srcid
IPV4/10.1.1.1
>> dstid IPV4/20.1.1.1 type use
>> flow esp out from 1.1.1.0/25 to 2.2.2.0/21 peer 20.1.1.1 srcid
IPV4/10.1.1.1
>> dstid IPV4/20.1.1.1 type require
>> flow esp in from 20.1.1.1 to 10.1.1.1 peer 20.1.1.1 srcid IPV4/10.1.1.1
dstid
>> IPV4/20.1.1.1 type use
>> flow esp out from 10.1.1.1 to 20.1.1.1 peer 20.1.1.1 srcid IPV4/10.1.1.1
dstid
>> IPV4/20.1.1.1 type require
>>
>> SAD:
>> esp tunnel from 20.1.1.1 to 10.1.1.1 spi 0x2d2a6151 auth hmac-sha2-256 enc
>> aes-256
>> esp tunnel from 10.1.1.1 to 20.1.1.1 spi 0x5152256e auth hmac-sha2-256 enc
>> aes-256
>>
>>
>> The problem is that I can not ping Office-net from Home-net then tunnel is
>> established.
>> I can see packets on enc0 going from Home-net to Office-net while I'm
watching
>> on Home-gw, but nothing on enc0 on the Office-side.
>>
>> This is the state for tunnel until I start a ping from some machine on
>> Office-side, then suddenly tunnel functioning correctly
>> and I can ping internal machines from both sides and connect(ssh) from
both
>> sides.
>>
>> Question is why this strange behavior? I tried to switch from passive to
>> active on the Office-gw with the same result.
>> Or does it have to do with the CARP? PF rules are as they are described in
the
>> iked.conf manual.
>>
>> Anyone have an idea what is going on?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maxim
>
> Have you patched isakmpd?
>
> Maybe that's one of the problems that was addressed.
>
> I made a quick script that patches isakmpd automatic, it's maybe ugly
> but it works for me.
>
> http://pastebin.com/CCV0PitV
>
> Best regards Johan

Reply via email to