[strongSwan] One to Many VPN (Host-Host)

Info infosec at quantum-equities.com
Sat Mar 17 02:11:20 CET 2018

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.

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".

In the IPSec gateway's log is:

Mar 16 17:57:08 12[ENC] <1> parsed IKE_SA_INIT request 0 [ SA KE No
Mar 16 17:57:08 12[CFG] <1> looking for an ike config for
Mar 16 17:57:08 12[IKE] <1> no IKE config found for, sending NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN

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.

'No IKE config found' might imply that remote_ts has to have, 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.

On 03/16/2018 05:52 PM, Info wrote:
> Granted, and actually I'm much further than this now, thanks in part
> to your help.
> I was seeing whether it's worth bothering here. 
> No one seems to be using swanctl judging from no response on #IRC. 
> It's a far better system than ipsec.conf.
> 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.
> 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.
> ikev2-pubkey {
>         version = 2
> #        proposals =
> aes192gcm16-aes128gcm16-aes192-prfsha256-ecp256-ecp521,aes192-sha256-modp3072,default
>         rekey_time = 0s
>         pools = primary-pool-ipv4 #, primary-pool-ipv6
>         fragmentation = yes
>         dpd_delay = 30s
>         # dpd_timeout doesn't do anything for IKEv2. The general IKEv2
> packet timeouts are used.
>         local-1 {
>             cert = cygnus-Cert.pem
>             id = cygnus.darkmatter.org
>         }
>         remote-1 {
>             # defaults are fine.
>         }
>         children {
>             ikev2-pubkey {
>                 local_ts = #,::/0
>                 rekey_time = 0s
>                 dpd_action = clear
> #                esp_proposals =
> aes192gcm16-aes128gcm16-aes192-ecp256,aes192-sha256-modp3072,default
>             }
>         }
>     }
> 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.
> 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, 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.
> 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..
> On 03/16/2018 05:24 PM, Noel Kuntze wrote:
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.strongswan.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20180316/78eeb013/attachment.html>

More information about the Users mailing list