Paul, you're right, the tunnel is stablished but the traffic isn't being encripted, any idea of why ?<br><br>Thanks a lot, Pablo<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/29/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Wouters</b>
<<a href="mailto:paul@xelerance.com">paul@xelerance.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Pablo García wrote:
<br><br>> Hi, I'm a newbie about IPSEC tunnels, I created a tunel between a Linux<br>> <a href="http://2.6.16.20"></b></font><font color="red"><b>MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "2.6.16.20" claiming to be</b></font> <font color="red"><b>MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious: 2.6.16.20</a> on a Fedora Core 5, and a PIX Firewall 535 running soft ver 6.1,<br>> using psk as a method of authentication.
<br>> The tunnel seems to work fine, but I have intermitent reconnections and<br>> that's affecting my users, I'm getting this errors in the /var/log/secure<br>><br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 22:55:41 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #210:
<br>> STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2<br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 22:55:41 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #210:<br>> ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [9de3cb4613dd369d66383473f87da32a]<br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 22:55:41 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #210:
<br>> ignoring Vendor ID payload [Cisco VPN 3000 Series]<br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 22:55:41 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #210:<br>> STATE_MAIN_R2: sent MR2, expecting MI3<br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 22:55:42 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #210: I did
<br>> not send a certificate because I do not have one.<br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 23:40:41 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #211:<br>> STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2<br>> UNKNOWN: Jun 28 23:40:41 routertech pluto[1818]: "tunnelipsec" #211:
<br>> ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload<br><br>Are you sure it is working at all, and your packets aren't going plaintext all<br>the time?<br><br>> Anyone have an idea of what might be happening ? or where's the source of
<br>> this messages?<br><br>One possible explenation is that initiator and responder switch, and only when<br>openswan is the responder that there is a failure. Try setting openswan's<br>ikelifetime= to less then 1 hour to force openswan to stay an initiator,
<br>and see what happens.<br><br>Paul<br>--<br>Building and integrating Virtual Private Networks with Openswan:<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1904811256/104-3099591-2946327?n=283155">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1904811256/104-3099591-2946327?n=283155
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>