[strongSwan] One to Many VPN (Host-Host)
Info
infosec at quantum-equities.com
Sat Mar 17 21:14:01 CET 2018
Of course it's wrong to add
remote_ts = 192.168.1.0/24
below
local_ts = 0.0.0.0/0 #,::/0
... I'd successfully predicted that...
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) ]
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[CFG] <1> looking for an ike config for
192.168.1.16...192.168.1.6
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
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> added payload of type NOTIFY to message
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> order payloads in message
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> added payload of type NOTIFY to message
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating IKE_SA_INIT response 0 [ N(NO_PROP) ]
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> not encrypting payloads
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating payload of type HEADER
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 0 IKE_SPI
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 1 IKE_SPI
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 2 U_INT_8
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 3 U_INT_4
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 4 U_INT_4
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 5 U_INT_8
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 6 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 7 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 8 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 9 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 10 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 11 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 12 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 13 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 14 U_INT_32
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 15 HEADER_LENGTH
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating HEADER payload finished
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating payload of type NOTIFY
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 0 U_INT_8
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 1 FLAG
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 2 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 3 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 4 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 5 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 6 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 7 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 8 RESERVED_BIT
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 9 PAYLOAD_LENGTH
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 10 U_INT_8
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 11 SPI_SIZE
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 12 U_INT_16
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 13 SPI
Mar 17 13:05:08 10[ENC] <1> generating rule 14 CHUNK_DATA
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[ENC] <1> generating NOTIFY payload finished
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[NET] <1> sending packet: from 192.168.1.16[500] to
192.168.1.6[40976] (36 )
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[MGR] <1> checkin and destroy IKE_SA (unnamed)[1]
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[IKE] <1> IKE_SA (unnamed)[1] state change: CREATED =>
DESTROYING
Mar 17 13:05:09 10[MGR] checkin and destroy of IKE_SA successful
Mar 17 13:05:09 04[NET] sending packet: from 192.168.1.16[500] to
192.168.1.6[40976]
'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.
On 03/16/2018 06:11 PM, Info wrote:
>
> 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
> N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) N(FRAG_SUP) N(HASH_ALG) N(REDIR_SUP) ]
> Mar 16 17:57:08 12[CFG] <1> looking for an ike config for
> 192.168.1.16...192.168.1.6
> 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
>
> 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
> 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.
>
>
> 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 = 0.0.0.0/0 #,::/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 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.
>>
>> 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/20180317/65014997/attachment.html>
More information about the Users
mailing list