[strongSwan] [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] multiple tunnels
Modster, Anthony
Anthony.Modster at Teledyne.com
Wed May 3 23:00:57 CEST 2017
Hello Noel
? can you send me the link to "HelpRequests[1] page"
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Kuntze [mailto:noel.kuntze+strongswan-users-ml at thermi.consulting]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Modster, Anthony <Anthony.Modster at Teledyne.com>; users at lists.strongswan.org
Subject: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [strongSwan] [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] multiple tunnels
For each interface.
On 03.05.2017 22:24, Modster, Anthony wrote:
> Hello Noel
>
> Quick question, do you want the tcpdump capture for each interface, or capture at the secure gateway side.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Kuntze
> [mailto:noel.kuntze+strongswan-users-ml at thermi.consulting]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:08 PM
> To: Modster, Anthony <Anthony.Modster at Teledyne.com>;
> users at lists.strongswan.org
> Subject: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No
> Reputation] multiple tunnels
>
> Hello Anthony,
>
> On 03.05.2017 20:36, Modster, Anthony wrote:
>> Each tunnel would be bound to a separate interface (eth1.13 and ppp0).
>> Our application would open a socket for each tunnel end point, and bind to it (so there is no routing needed).
> What kind of socket? Raw IP?
>
>> We verified that ESP packets are being sent from each application socket to the assigned interface.
> Huh? Don't you mean "We verified that ESP packets are sent for each packet that is emitted from the application socket to the assigned interface"?
>
>> We verified that IKE packets are being sent to each interface from Charon.
> This is very curious. Please verify that they are indeed sent out from two different interfaces.
> As I previously mentioned, routing decisions are made based on the destination address, not the source address, so IKE packets for either IKE_SA would traverse the same interface and use the same route, except if you used policy based routing.
>
> Anyway, I require logs to figure out what happens exactly. Please create them using the file logger definition from the HelpRequests[1] page.
>
> Kind regards,
> Noel
>
> [1]
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1j3GkDWiMC47CUy7JEZrTMFVOcm1wcAG1qjUD4ejw
> TAGcl7Ie8pH_oYW3ermSmwJCHgfvbtGVlYFEBP8roXNFVxQH5MyW5aLMsU9pDAUSxyzCAs
> lioVIyuREQoLk_-CP9Gus-3GQRkuDUOYzov0N5ZPq6tsv_2mW9NGMkRK-O3WZpWyeuW-WH
> B5bGM1JBQu1w0xtwPy7ehB2hEZcy-cCyXQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.strongswan.org%2
> Fprojects%2Fstrongswan%2Fwiki%2FHelpRequests
>
>> ? does this sound ok
>> I will send more after your response.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Noel Kuntze
>> [mailto:noel.kuntze+strongswan-users-ml at thermi.consulting]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:38 AM
>> To: Modster, Anthony <Anthony.Modster at Teledyne.com>;
>> users at lists.strongswan.org
>> Subject: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [strongSwan] [SUSPECT
>> EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: multiple tunnels
>>
>> Hello Anthony,
>>
>> On 03.05.2017 19:24, Modster, Anthony wrote:
>>> We are using two interfaces at once from same host to the same secure gateway.
>> Why?
>> Why even two IKE_SAs? Just use one IKE_SA and have the two CHILD_SAs be managed under one.
>>
>>> root at wglng-6:~# ip route show
>>> 10.64.64.64 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 166.204.4.61
>>> 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1.13 proto kernel scope link src
>>> 192.168.1.134
>>> Note: I did not show interfaces that are not applicable
>>>
>>> Both tunnels are up and were able to ping and send data thru the tunnels.
>>> root at wglng-6:~# swanctl --list-sas
>>> sgateway1-radio0: #2, ESTABLISHED, IKEv2, 08173d8797a410eb_i* 5fa1f29dce075fd4_r
>>> local 'RA00006 at Teledyne.com' @ 166.204.4.61[4500] [20.20.20.9]
>>> remote 'C=CA, O=Carillon Information Security Inc., OU=TEST, OU=Devices, OU=Aircraft Operator Ground Stations, OU=Teledyne Controls, CN=ELS-VPAPP-WGL08 - ID' @ 76.232.248.210[4500]
>>> AES_CBC-256/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/ECP_256
>>> established 922s ago, rekeying in 43s, reauth in 2455s
>>> sgateway1-radio0: #4, reqid 2, INSTALLED, TUNNEL-in-UDP, ESP:AES_CBC-256/HMAC_SHA1_96
>>> installed 336s ago, rekeying in 211s, expires in 325s
>>> in c2e01069, 1320 bytes, 33 packets, 6s ago
>>> out e1c27d5f, 1452 bytes, 33 packets, 6s ago
>>> local 20.20.20.9/32
>>> remote 10.100.20.15/32
>>> sgateway1-gldl: #1, ESTABLISHED, IKEv2, 00989cc440834937_i* 5e3c5e4b5c1ec4cf_r
>>> local 'RA00006 at Teledyne.com' @ 192.168.1.134[4500] [20.20.20.8]
>>> remote 'C=CA, O=Carillon Information Security Inc., OU=TEST, OU=Devices, OU=Aircraft Operator Ground Stations, OU=Teledyne Controls, CN=ELS-VPAPP-WGL08 - ID' @ 76.232.248.210[4500]
>>> AES_CBC-256/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/ECP_256
>>> established 1049s ago, rekeying in 150s, reauth in 2257s
>>> sgateway1-gldl: #3, reqid 1, INSTALLED, TUNNEL-in-UDP, ESP:AES_CBC-256/HMAC_SHA1_96
>>> installed 469s ago, rekeying in 104s, expires in 191s
>>> in c45db512, 1880 bytes, 47 packets, 6s ago
>>> out 77309eef, 2068 bytes, 47 packets, 6s ago
>>> local 20.20.20.8/32
>>> remote 10.100.20.15/32
>>>
>>> strongswan creates the following in table 220 root at wglng-6:~# ip
>>> route show table 220
>>> 10.100.20.15 via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1.13 proto static src
>>> 20.20.20.8
>>>
>>> When we bring down eth1.13, the tunnel for ppp0 becomes unusable.
>> What do you mean with "the tunnel for ppp0"? The interface is irrelevant.
>> Packets are routed based on their destination. Charon does not pick two different paths for two different IKE_SAs to the same peer.
>>
>> Are you aware that charon uses one path for all the IKE_SAs to one peer?
>> Charon should choose another path to the remote peer, if there is one (and the "src" parameter of the corresponding route allows that). I guess your routing table doesn't allow that.
>>
>> Please provide logs that show the problem.
>>
>>> We think the problem is that ppp0 does not have a via in table 220.
>> Irrelevant. See above.
>>
>>> If you need more information, let me know.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Noel Kuntze
>>> [mailto:noel.kuntze+strongswan-users-ml at thermi.consulting]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 7:33 AM
>>> To: Modster, Anthony <Anthony.Modster at Teledyne.com>;
>>> users at lists.strongswan.org
>>> Subject: [SUSPECT EMAIL: No Reputation] Re: [strongSwan] multiple
>>> tunnels
>>>
>>> Hello Anthony,
>>>
>>> On 03.05.2017 06:57, Modster, Anthony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ? how to setup ipsec policy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We want to use multiple tunnels on separate interfaces on the same host to one secure gateway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The secure gateway only has one external IP address.
>>>>
>>> Depends on your exact requirements. You need to elaborate on this.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Noel
>>>
>>> -- Noel Kuntze IT security consultant GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C
>>> Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739 AD6C
>>> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list
>>> Users at lists.strongswan.org
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1umLFBujqnWj6QpzkmjOs5N9U3Ek-8bie0MXpB6
>>> w
>>> Z
>>> 9ss1vhilBrSfF13tKoWL6NTRe0CPd1SRvuy2CT2LgFRD1gjLQ21atsRzKU836ZbhigAz
>>> 4
>>> k
>>> 14W-T9yeoOC4t2-xDiwbecTeWHYlRtlO1w7TQmXEEzPLgNH25aPblOjUYxnVk3llkYq0
>>> W
>>> l
>>> d7pEH7cKab9tMboT6476CmpbjuM8HztzzA/https%3A%2F%2Flists.strongswan.or
>>> g
>>> %
>>> 2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusers
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.strongswan.org
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZUqhowo0_mv9V5kD25oaNH8gLBZLx66slK6Ff21L
> c9NCBKfl3Gs-GcDc9rITZdgrJ-gm4T7JliTiQ8tSyQ00Yvr4q_dP85oAHK-y6amf1lwgW4
> AgyJ5jvH2M04bEqEFcCxg6lss3F2tKV0s2k6RGOVF2-XjR0apCbvx4RxQkwAj2uGqSXzjf
> ZJzz0AqTsW6cseBSHwc-jMy4lczBfcy-Zg/https%3A%2F%2Flists.strongswan.org%
> 2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusers
>
More information about the Users
mailing list