<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000066" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Of course it's wrong to add <br>
</p>
remote_ts = 192.168.1.0/24<br>
below<br>
local_ts = 0.0.0.0/0 #,::/0<br>
<br>
... I'd successfully predicted that...<br>
<br>
<p>Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> parsed IKE_SA_INIT request 0 [
SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) N(FRAG_SUP) N(HASH_ALG)
N(REDIR_SUP) ]<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[CFG] <1> looking for an ike config for
192.168.1.16...192.168.1.6<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[IKE] <1> no IKE config found for
192.168.1.16...192.168.1.6, sending NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> added payload of type NOTIFY to
message<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> order payloads in message<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> added payload of type NOTIFY to
message<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating IKE_SA_INIT response
0 [ N(NO_PROP) ]<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> not encrypting payloads<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating payload of type
HEADER<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 0 IKE_SPI<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 1 IKE_SPI<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 2 U_INT_8<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 3 U_INT_4<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 4 U_INT_4<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 5 U_INT_8<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 6 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 7 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 8 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 9 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 10 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 11 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 12 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 13 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 14 U_INT_32<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 15
HEADER_LENGTH<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating HEADER payload
finished<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating payload of type
NOTIFY<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 0 U_INT_8<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 1 FLAG<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 2 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 3 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 4 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 5 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 6 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 7 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 8 RESERVED_BIT<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 9
PAYLOAD_LENGTH<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 10 U_INT_8<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 11 SPI_SIZE<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 12 U_INT_16<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 13 SPI<br>
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 14 CHUNK_DATA<br>
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[ENC] <1> generating NOTIFY payload
finished<br>
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[NET] <1> sending packet: from
192.168.1.16[500] to 192.168.1.6[40976] (36 )<br>
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[MGR] <1> checkin and destroy IKE_SA
(unnamed)[1]<br>
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[IKE] <1> IKE_SA (unnamed)[1] state
change: CREATED => DESTROYING<br>
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[MGR] checkin and destroy of IKE_SA successful<br>
Mar 17 13:05:09 04[NET] sending packet: from 192.168.1.16[500] to
192.168.1.6[40976]<br>
</p>
<p>'Read the docs'? I've done that for a month, and it turns out
that most pertain to the old way, and so I am quite confused at
this point.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/16/2018 06:11 PM, Info wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:56e19835-69e9-924c-46c5-2c20c9907f5a@quantum-equities.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>The IPSec gateway is a virtual machine dedicated to being the
IPSec gateway for the LAN. All port 500 and 4500 traffic is
directed to it by the LAN gateway using DNAT, and the LAN
gateway has a public IP. No special measures have been taken on
the LAN gateway for routing ESP.<br>
</p>
<p>On the remote phone, which runs the Strongswan app and has a
public IP, an attempt to connect results in my old friend
"NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN".</p>
<p>In the IPSec gateway's log is:</p>
<p>Mar 16 17:57:08 12[ENC] <1> parsed IKE_SA_INIT request 0
[ SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) N(FRAG_SUP) N(HASH_ALG)
N(REDIR_SUP) ]<br>
Mar 16 17:57:08 12[CFG] <1> looking for an ike config for
192.168.1.16...192.168.1.6<br>
Mar 16 17:57:08 12[IKE] <1> no IKE config found for
192.168.1.16...192.168.1.6, sending NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN</p>
<p>Well both the IPSec gateway and remote phone, are using their
static LAN IP rather than any reference to a public IP, for some
reason. That seems pretty queer.<br>
</p>
<p>'No IKE config found' might imply that remote_ts has to have
192.168.1.0/24, although extensive past experience shows that I
can fiddle with infinite permutations in this and fail
indefinitely. I just don't understand the language -meaning- of
the config files settings yet, in terms of plain English.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/16/2018 05:52 PM, Info wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:29baf6e4-f6e4-b914-ee5a-4dc52af5cceb@quantum-equities.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Granted, and actually I'm much further than this now, thanks
in part to your help.</p>
<p>I was seeing whether it's worth bothering here. <br>
</p>
<p>No one seems to be using swanctl judging from no response on
#IRC. It's a far better system than ipsec.conf.</p>
<p>I've given up on my complete LAN using VPN as some devices
can not do IPSec, and I can't figure out how to make them
interoperate with machines running IPSec. So I've relegated
myself to using an IPSec gateway in the LAN to link with
outside machines.</p>
<p>I still don't understand the language of swanctl.conf. For
example my best guess is this is correct for the gateway, and
the gateway can still communicate with all non-IPSec machines
in the LAN while running strongswan-swanctl, and I've fixed
the SELinux problems, but it does not work with my remote
machines. The daemon starts just fine and loads all the certs
and keys of course.<br>
</p>
<p>ikev2-pubkey {<br>
version = 2<br>
# proposals =
aes192gcm16-aes128gcm16-aes192-prfsha256-ecp256-ecp521,aes192-sha256-modp3072,default<br>
rekey_time = 0s<br>
pools = primary-pool-ipv4 #, primary-pool-ipv6<br>
fragmentation = yes<br>
dpd_delay = 30s<br>
# dpd_timeout doesn't do anything for IKEv2. The
general IKEv2 packet timeouts are used.<br>
local-1 {<br>
cert = cygnus-Cert.pem<br>
id = cygnus.darkmatter.org<br>
}<br>
remote-1 {<br>
# defaults are fine.<br>
}<br>
children {<br>
ikev2-pubkey {<br>
local_ts = 0.0.0.0/0 #,::/0<br>
rekey_time = 0s<br>
dpd_action = clear<br>
# esp_proposals =
aes192gcm16-aes128gcm16-aes192-ecp256,aes192-sha256-modp3072,default<br>
}<br>
}<br>
}<br>
<br>
</p>
<p>So each end should take the other end's public cert, combine
it with its private key, and come up with a symmetric key to
communicate with.</p>
<p>The local_ts determines what traffic is to go in to IPSec,
but that would be all of it. So from another machine in the
LAN I aim at the mailserver outside at 72.251.232.108, if I
can somehow make the LAN direct traffic to the IPSec gateway
(which is different from the LAN gateway), the IPSec gateway
should somehow aim it at the mailserver rather than the remote
phone or tablet.</p>
<p>And somehow the IPSec gateway should be able to carry on
simultaneous conversations with the mailserver and
phone/tablet, but surely that means two point-to-point
connections..<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/16/2018 05:24 PM, Noel Kuntze
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2c3fcd2b-b17d-1ccd-b9b3-726f82a08203@thermi.consulting">
<pre wrap="">We two talked about this on IRC about two weeks ago. Use the Host-To-Host transport mode configuration on the bottom of the UsableExamples page.
How you authenticate the hosts is up to you. Preferably, you want to have some central PKI that you use. Maybe put the keys in DNS using the ipseckey plugin, but I haven't tested that yet.
Kind regards
Noel
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>