Andrew,

Extracted the same portion of log when connecting with previous version 5.0, 
that is working: 


Oct 18 09:54:40.186080: "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119 #3: the peer proposed: 
192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.100/32
Oct 18 09:54:40.186082: | find_v1_client_connection starting with tunnel8
Oct 18 09:54:40.186084: |   looking for 192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.100/32
Oct 18 09:54:40.186086: |   concrete checking against sr#0 0.0.0.0/0 -> 
192.168.20.100/32
Oct 18 09:54:40.186089: | 
FOR_EACH_CONNECTION[local=82.100.127.28,remote=6.149.27.119].... in (fc_try() 
+2024 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186091: |   found "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119
Oct 18 09:54:40.186093: |   fc_try: looking at 0.0.0.0/0===192.168.20.100/32
Oct 18 09:54:40.186096: | match_id a=192.168.1.60
Oct 18 09:54:40.186097: |          b=192.168.1.60
Oct 18 09:54:40.186098: | results  matched wildcards=0
Oct 18 09:54:40.186100: | virt: is_virtual_spd_end() no spd=no config=no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186102: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd no/no; 
config no/no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186105: |   fc_try trying tunnel8:192.168.20.0/24:0/0 -> 
192.168.20.100/32:0/0 vs tunnel8:0.0.0.0/0:0/0 -> 192.168.20.100/32:0/0
Oct 18 09:54:40.186107: |    our client (0.0.0.0/0) not in local_net 
(192.168.20.0/24)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186108: |   matches: 1
Oct 18 09:54:40.186110: |   fc_try concluding with none [0]
Oct 18 09:54:40.186111: |   fc_try tunnel8 gives none
Oct 18 09:54:40.186113: | 
FOR_EACH_CONNECTION[local=82.100.127.28,remote=<unset-address>].... in 
(find_v1_client_connection() +2303 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186114: |   found "tunnel2-nat"
Oct 18 09:54:40.186116: |   checking hostpair 0.0.0.0/0 -> 192.168.20.100/32
Oct 18 09:54:40.186118: | 
FOR_EACH_CONNECTION[local=82.100.127.28,remote=<unset-address>].... in 
(fc_try() +2024 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186119: |   found "tunnel2-nat"
Oct 18 09:54:40.186123: |   fc_try: looking at <unset-selectors>
Oct 18 09:54:40.186124: |   found "tunnel2"
Oct 18 09:54:40.186125: |   fc_try: looking at <unset-selectors>
Oct 18 09:54:40.186127: |   found "tunnel8"
Oct 18 09:54:40.186129: |   fc_try: looking at 0.0.0.0/0===0.0.0.0/0
Oct 18 09:54:40.186130: | match_id a=192.168.1.60
Oct 18 09:54:40.186132: |          b=(none)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186133: | results  matched wildcards=15
Oct 18 09:54:40.186134: | virt: is_virtual_spd_end() no spd=no config=no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186136: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd no/no; 
config no/no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186138: |   fc_try trying tunnel8:192.168.20.0/24:0/0 -> 
192.168.20.100/32:0/0 vs tunnel8:0.0.0.0/0:0/0 -> 0.0.0.0/0:0/0
Oct 18 09:54:40.186140: |    our client (0.0.0.0/0) not in local_net 
(192.168.20.0/24)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186141: |   matches: 3
Oct 18 09:54:40.186143: |   fc_try concluding with none [0]
Oct 18 09:54:40.186144: |   concluding with d = none
Oct 18 09:54:40.186146: | using something (we hope the IP we or they are NAT'ed 
to) for transport mode connection "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119
Oct 18 09:54:40.186148: | "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119: addref 
@0x55e2ca27d058(1->2) "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119:  (quick_inI1_outR1_tail() 
+1110 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
Oct 18 09:54:40.186150: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd no/no; 
config no/no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186151: | client: yes  port wildcard: no  virtual: no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186152: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd no/no; 
config no/no
Oct 18 09:54:40.186154: | NAT-Traversal: received 0 NAT-OA.




—
Saludos / Regards / Cumprimentos
António Silva

> On 18 Oct 2024, at 09:03, antonio via Swan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I couldn’t find the bug in git, do you want me to create one? 
> 
> 
> Here it is the log: 
> 
> Oct 18 09:52:07.299981: "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119 #3: the peer proposed: 
> 192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.100/32
> Oct 18 09:52:07.299984: | find_v1_client_connection starting with tunnel8
> Oct 18 09:52:07.299989: |   looking for 192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.100/32
> Oct 18 09:52:07.299994: |   concrete checking against sr#0 0.0.0.0/0 -> 
> 192.168.20.100/32
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300001: | 
> FOR_EACH_CONNECTION[local=82.100.127.28,remote=6.149.27.119].... in (fc_try() 
> +2025 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300005: |   found "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300010: |   fc_try: looking at 0.0.0.0/0===192.168.20.100/32
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300015: | match_id a=192.168.1.60
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300019: |          b=192.168.1.60
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300022: | results  matched wildcards=0
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300025: | virt: is_virtual_spd_end() no spd=no config=no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300030: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd 
> no/no; config no/no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300035: |   fc_try trying tunnel8:192.168.20.0/24:0/0 -> 
> 192.168.20.100/32:0/0 vs tunnel8:0.0.0.0/0:0/0 -> 192.168.20.100/32:0/0
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300039: |    our client (0.0.0.0/0) not in local_net 
> (192.168.20.0/24)
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300042: |   matches: 1
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300044: |   fc_try concluding with none [0]
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300048: |   fc_try tunnel8 gives none
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300051: | 
> FOR_EACH_CONNECTION[local=82.100.127.28,remote=<unset-address>].... in 
> (find_v1_client_connection() +2303 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300055: |   found "tunnel8"
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300058: |   checking hostpair 0.0.0.0/0 -> 192.168.20.100/32
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300066: | 
> FOR_EACH_CONNECTION[local=82.100.127.28,remote=<unset-address>].... in 
> (fc_try() +2025 programs/pluto/ikev1_quick.c)
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300070: |   found "tunnel8"
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300074: |   fc_try: looking at 0.0.0.0/0===0.0.0.0/0
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300078: | match_id a=192.168.1.60
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300080: |          b=(none)
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300084: | results  matched wildcards=15
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300087: | virt: is_virtual_spd_end() no spd=no config=no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300091: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd 
> no/no; config no/no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300095: |   fc_try trying tunnel8:192.168.20.0/24:0/0 -> 
> 192.168.20.100/32:0/0 vs tunnel8:0.0.0.0/0:0/0 -> 0.0.0.0/0:0/0
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300100: |    our client (0.0.0.0/0) not in local_net 
> (192.168.20.0/24)
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300103: |   found "tunnel2"
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300105: |   fc_try: looking at <unset-selectors>
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300108: |   found "tunnel2-nat"
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300111: |   fc_try: looking at <unset-selectors>
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300114: |   matches: 3
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300116: |   fc_try concluding with none [0]
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300119: |   concluding with d = none
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300122: | virt: is_virtual_remote() no local/remote spd 
> no/no; config no/no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300127: | virt: is_virtual_spd_end() no spd=no config=no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300134: | virt: is_virtual_spd_end() no spd=no config=no
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300137: "tunnel8"[2] 6.149.27.119 #3: cannot respond to IPsec 
> SA request because no connection is known for 
> 192.168.20.0/24===82.100.127.28[@xauth.mad,MS+XS+S=C]...6.149.27.119[192.168.1.60,+MC+XC+S=C]===192.168.20.100/32
> Oct 18 09:52:07.300140: | complete v1 state transition with 
> INVALID_ID_INFORMATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> —
> Saludos / Regards / Cumprimentos
> António Silva
> 
>> On 17 Oct 2024, at 19:10, Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> António,
>> 
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 11:29, antonio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the detail info.
>>> 
>>> If it helps to reproduce and close the issue, my adicional setup is:
>>> 
>>> Debian: 11.11
>>> Linux kernel:
>>> 5.10.226
>>> 
>>> User in /etc/ipsec.d/passwd:
>>> asilvapt@mad:$6$W27QzNXfRvCY$F.ea5ytgP/sdsdsds::192.168.20.2
>> 
>> Could you run the interop with plutodebug=all and then extract logs
>> between (and including):
>> 
>>  the peer proposed: 192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.2/32
>>  cannot respond to IPsec SA request because no connection is known
>> for 
>> 192.168.20.0/24===82.100.127.28[@xauth.mad,MS+XS+S=C]...6.149.27.119[192.168.1.60,+MC+XC+S=C]===192.168.20.2/32
>> 
>> and put that in the bug.
>> 
>>> If you need more info, please let me know.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Saludos / Regards / Cumprimentos
>>> António Silva
>>> 
>>> On 17 Oct 2024, at 16:09, Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 5.1 fixed this bug:
>>> - fix Quick mode installing 0.0.0.0/0 when no MSG_CONFIG exchange
>>> [Andrew, Tuomo]
>>> It was exposed in 5.0 (kernel policy was set to 0.0.0.0/0) but 4.x was
>>> also broken (it installed the peer's host address).
>>> 
>>> I suspect this is a similar problem.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> left=82.100.127.28
>>> right=%any
>>> leftsubnet=0.0.0.0/0
>>> rightaddresspool=192.168.20.100-192.168.20.254
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here's the start of quick mode.
>>> 
>>> Oct 17 10:16:02 sol1 pluto[882496]: "tunnel8"[4] 6.149.27.119 #5: the peer 
>>> proposed: 192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.2/32
>>> Oct 17 10:16:02 sol1 pluto[882496]: |   checking hostpair 0.0.0.0/0 -> 
>>> 192.168.20.2/32
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's looking for a host-pair matching 0.0.0.0/0 -> 192.168.20.2/32.
>>> That's wrong -  192.168.20.2/32 is not the peer's host address.  Yet,
>>> somehow, it stumbled on:
>>> 
>>> Oct 17 10:16:02 sol1 pluto[882496]: "tunnel8"[4] 6.149.27.119 #6: 
>>> responding to Quick Mode proposal {msgid:ba263d12}
>>> Oct 17 10:16:02 sol1 pluto[882496]: "tunnel8"[4] 6.149.27.119 #6:     us: 
>>> 0.0.0.0/0===82.100.127.28[@xauth.mad,MS+XS+S=C]  them: 
>>> 6.149.27.119[192.168.1.60,+MC+XC+S=C]===192.168.20.2/32
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, in 5.1:
>>> 
>>> Oct 17 10:15:01 sol1 pluto[855951]: "tunnel8"[6] 6.149.27.119 #5: the peer 
>>> proposed: 192.168.20.0/24===192.168.20.2/32
>>> Oct 17 10:15:01 sol1 pluto[855951]: |   checking hostpair 0.0.0.0/0 -> 
>>> 192.168.20.2/32
>>> Oct 17 10:15:01 sol1 pluto[855951]: "tunnel8"[6] 6.149.27.119 #5: cannot 
>>> respond to IPsec SA request because no connection is known for 
>>> 192.168.20.0/24===82.100.127.28[@xauth.mad,MS+XS+S=C]...6.149.27.119[192.168.1.60,+MC+XC+S=C]===192.168.20.2/32
>>> 
>>> 
>>> that failed.
>>> 
>>> I'd file a bug.
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Swan mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
Swan mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to