Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-10-03 Thread Vic Berdin
Hello Charles, Lynn, everyone! And well enough!! A tunnel is UP! Both clients from end-to-end can ping each other. Thanks for all your help! I fixed a bit of chaining rules and followed the 2048 sigkey regeneration recommended by Charles. I did almost nothing on the ipsec confs, but replace the n

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-10-02 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
> Anyway, as an update to my VPN woes, I'm already able to rid off > of the md5sum descrepancies pointed out by Charles (the md5sum > bin I got is broken). Yet, the same 'trapped' status remains. Hmm...I *KNOW* the ipsec stuff on Dachstein-CD works...I use it in production daily. I agree your ro

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-10-01 Thread Vic Berdin
- Original Message - From: "Charles Steinkuehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "guitarlynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vic Berdin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [leaf-user] su

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-10-01 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
> Both sides are intending to "start" the connection only one can > "start" the connection, the other side(s) must "add". Actually, this is quite legal, and how I have most of my VPN's setup (the exceptions are the connections where one end has a dynamic IP...you can't start these from the en

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-30 Thread guitarlynn
On Monday 30 September 2002 09:49, Vic Berdin wrote: > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window > irtt Iface > 192.168.5.0 192.168.2.200 255.255.255.0 UG0 0 > 0 ipsec0 > 192.168.4.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-30 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
> I'm now using the plain ipsec.lrp and tried using both PSK then RSA > keying > but the problem still lurks. > Here are the barfs from the two IPSEC machines. I deaply apologize for > this post. > But I'm really stumped now. :o( Well, the log messages on both ends look equally cryptic. In gener

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-30 Thread Vic Berdin
Hello Charles/Everyone, > 1) Why are you loading the ipsec x.509 version of FreeS/WAN when you're > not trying to use certificates? Out of frustration I wish to try out everything and mistakenly backed up ipsec.lrp along with the x.509 binaries. I'm now using the plain ipsec.lrp and tried using

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-30 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
> Thanks for your reply. I already tookout the 'ip_masq_ipseq' > from loading, but still, the exact problem remains. > BTW, the eth1 interface from VPN1 BOX actually goes to > the VPN1 BOX client. Hence, it's actually an internal device. > My diagram is indeed a bit confusing. > I do have some mor

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-30 Thread Vic Berdin
___ + + date Tue Jul 30 06:46:40 UTC 2002 - Original Message - From: "guitarlynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vic Berdin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-s

Re: [leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-29 Thread guitarlynn
On Sunday 29 September 2002 05:08, Vic Berdin wrote: >VPN1-CLI > > |eth0: 192.168.4.1 > |gw:192.168.4.200 > | > | > |eth1: 192.168.4.200 > |gw:192.168.2.1 > > VPN1 BOX >From the look of things, your using Da

[leaf-user] subnet-to-subnet simulation problem

2002-09-29 Thread Vic Berdin
Hello everyone, This is actually a freeswan VPN query, so I'm sorry if I had to post this query here also. But I do know that most of you are experts in the VPN field, hence, here goes... I've been trying to do a subnet-to-subnet VPN using my LEAF based routers without success. My setup involves