[strongSwan] IKE Phase 1 and Phase 2 parameters

2020-09-04 Thread Leroy Tennison
I either don't know what to look for on the web or am having trouble finding settings for IKE phase 1 and phase 2 negotiation. It seems that the '"ike=" ipsec.conf parameter specifies settings for Phase 1 but I'm not finding anything for Phase 2 for Strongswan. Other IPSec implementations

Re: [strongSwan] Connectivity between Windows 2019 server and Ubuntu 16.04 stops; can TS be explicitly specified

2020-09-04 Thread Karuna Sagar Krishna
Thanks Tobias. Few follow up questions: 1. I'm only adding or removing connections in ipsec.conf and not modifying existing connections. And also I only use complete IP addresses for both left and right. So, would `ipsec update` be better suited and would still cause any other known issues? 2.

Re: [strongSwan] aesxcbc did not work for ph2 but worked for ph1

2020-09-04 Thread Makarand Pradhan
Thanks Tobias for your response. I recompiled the kernel with: +CONFIG_CRYPTO_XCBC=y And it worked for me. Kind rgds, Makarand Pradhan Senior Software Engineer. iS5 Communications Inc. 5895 Ambler Dr, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5B7 Main Line: +1-844-520-0588 Ext. 129 Direct Line: +1-289-724-2296

Re: [strongSwan] Connectivity between Windows 2019 server and Ubuntu 16.04 stops; can TS be explicitly specified

2020-09-04 Thread Tobias Brunner
Hi Karuna, > The issue is intermittent > and possibly coincides with ipsec reload command execution used when we > make changes in the ipsec.conf file. Don't use `ipsec reload`, if anything use `ipsec update` as it only affects the actually modified configs. Either way, there are known issues

Re: [strongSwan] aesxcbc did not work for ph2 but worked for ph1

2020-09-04 Thread Tobias Brunner
Hi Makarand, > It works when I use it with IKE but throws a netlink error while trying to > use with ESP. Obviously, your kernel does not support the algorithm. Regards, Tobias

Re: [strongSwan] Restricting protocol and port numbers question

2020-09-04 Thread Tobias Brunner
Hi Makarand, > All the same, the packets are not pushed into the tunnel: > > ping 192.168.9.3 -I 10.10.9.4 > PING 192.168.9.3 (192.168.9.3) from 10.10.9.4 : 56(84) bytes of data. > ping: sendmsg: Network is unreachable > ping: sendmsg: Network is unreachable > > The ip xfrm policy seems to be