Re: [strongSwan] Specifying a "relaxed" ESP encryption/authentication proposal for CHILD_SA setup and rekeying

2010-04-21 Thread Graham Hudspith
Martin, Thanks for that. Using the config param: esp=aes-sha1-modp1024,aes-sha1! and a strongSwan rebuilt with your patch, everything now works. Both SeGWs are happy. Phew! Cheers, Graham. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.strongswan.org https://lis

Re: [strongSwan] Query on Child SA Creation

2010-04-21 Thread shyamsundar.purkayastha
Hi Martin > To initiate each CHILD_SA in a seperate IKE_SA, you may specify the > strongswan.conf option charon.reuse_ikesa = no. Thanks for the update One more observation related to this . If I set reuse_ikesa=no then for bringing up the connection I can use "ipsec up" without the "{ }" suff

Re: [strongSwan] Specifying a "relaxed" ESP encryption/authentication proposal for CHILD_SA setup and rekeying

2010-04-21 Thread Martin Willi
Hi Graham, > esp=aes-sha1-modp1024,aes-sha1! > > but this seems to confuse the SECOND segw (after successful initial > tunnel setup, the second segw goes into an infinite immediate rekeying > loop). I did a test with this proposal, but it seems that we did not support such mixed

Re: [strongSwan] Query on Child SA Creation

2010-04-21 Thread Martin Willi
Hi, > But I actually wanted this as a separate SA which can be enabled > disabled separately. You can initiate/terminate specific CHILD_SAs using curly brackets, e.g. ipsec down connxy{}. > And just wanted to know what is the criteria for deciding that a > config should be a child of another on