[strongSwan] How to define multiple proposals in IKEv1
tobias at strongswan.org
Tue Aug 30 14:08:24 CEST 2016
> About Q1, for example, remote peer only accept *3des-sha1-modp1024*, and
> local Strongswan using the following "ike" config.
> a) ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024,*3des-sha1-modp1024*,aes128-sha2_256-modp1024
> b) ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024,*3des-sha1-modp1024*,aes128-sha2_256-modp1024!
> Config (a) works well and phase 1 passed using 3des-sha1-modp1024
> without problem.
> Config (b) failed and Strongswan only propose aes256-sha1-modp1024 to
> remote peer, and the 3des proposal is not sent at all. The only
> difference compared to (a) is I have added "!" to restrict Strongswan to
> accept the defined proposal.
> So question 1 is, why config (b) fail?
I can't reproduce this. When I use a) I get the following on the responder:
> received proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_3072
When I use b) I get this:
> received proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024
So the only difference is that the fourth proposal (derived from the
default proposal) is not sent. Check what your responder is doing and
why it fails.
> For Q2, using the same example, remote peer only accept
> *3des-sha1-modp1024* for phase 2, and local Strongswan using:
> a) esp=aes256-sha1-modp1024,*3des-sha1-modp1024*
> b) esp=aes256-sha1-modp1024,*3des-sha1-modp1024*!
> No matter (a) or (b), with or without "!", Strongswan never propose the
> second 3des proposal to remote peer, the behavior is different compared
> to "ike". Is this a bug?
Again, I can't reproduce it. But since these proposals include a DH
group adding ! doesn't make a difference (because the default ESP
proposal does not contain any DH groups it will be ignored).
Are you really using 5.5.0? Did you modify the source code in any way?
More information about the Users