[Openswan Users] Getting there....
Peter McGill
petermcgill at goco.net
Mon Mar 17 10:54:30 EDT 2008
It's often the case that distribution package maintainers do not keep
up with the source package maintainers releases. This is generally
not a problem unless you need a newer bugfix or feature.
If you want to keep up yourself, you'll need to manage that package
locally yourself, either creating a local updated distribution package
or simply installing directly from the source package.
It's simpler to install direct from the source package, however this
is done separate from your distributions package management system
and so the package will not be tracked, upgraded or anything with
your package management system (apt).
First download the compiler, build tools, etc... needed to build the package...
sudo apt-get build-dep openswan
Second download the openswan source...
wget -nH -nd -N http://openswan.org/download/openswan-2.4.11.tar.gz
Third extract the source...
tar -xvzf openswan-2.4.11.tar.gz
cd openswan-2.4.11
Fourth compile the program...
make programs
Fifth install the program (Note you should uninstall your old copy using apt first.)
sudo make install
The following howto further explains the basics of installing source packages.
http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Software-Building-HOWTO.html
Peter McGill
_____
From: Chris Thomas [mailto:cthomas at harkinsbuilders.com]
Sent: March 16, 2008 4:09 PM
To: petermcgill at goco.net; users at openswan.org
Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
I don't want to sound like a completely clueless noob, but I've only ever installed/updated stuff in Linux with apt. It appears
that I am running OpenSwan 1:2.4.6+dfsg.2-1.1build2 but when I attempt to update/upgrade, I am told that there is nothing to update.
I have the universe and multiverse repositories enabled but I'm guessing they don't contain the most up to date version of OpenSwan.
Does anyone know a repository I could add to get it to work, or an alternative way to update my OpenSwan install?
Thanks
-Chris
_____
From: Peter McGill [mailto:petermcgill at goco.net]
Sent: Fri 3/14/2008 5:00 PM
To: Chris Thomas; users at openswan.org
Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
It seems like your packets never get from Ubuntu back to
linksys. Try upgrading to the latest stable version,
2.4.11 I believe at http://openswan.org/code/
And since it didn't help, I suggest removing the leftnexthop line.
Peter McGill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Thomas [mailto:cthomas at harkinsbuilders.com]
> Sent: March 14, 2008 4:28 PM
> To: petermcgill at goco.net; users at openswan.org
> Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
>
> Dang. I made the change, restarted the server and tried to
> establish the tunnel from the Linksys device again. I got
> this in my logs, which appears to be the same as before:
>
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload
> [4f4540454371496d7a684644]
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection]
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947]
> meth=110, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: ignoring Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00]
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #1: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer 66.225.x.x
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #1: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R0 to state
> STATE_MAIN_R1
> Mar 14 16:19:13 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #1: STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload
> [4f4540454371496d7a684644]
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection]
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947]
> meth=110, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: ignoring Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00]
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #2: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer 66.225.x.x
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #2: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R0 to state
> STATE_MAIN_R1
> Mar 14 16:19:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #2: STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload
> [4f4540454371496d7a684644]
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection]
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947]
> meth=110, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: received Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but port floating is off
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: packet from
> 66.225.x.x:500: ignoring Vendor ID payload
> [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00]
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #3: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer 66.225.x.x
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #3: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R0 to state
> STATE_MAIN_R1
> Mar 14 16:19:43 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #3: STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2
> Mar 14 16:20:23 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #1: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_R1
> Mar 14 16:20:33 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #2: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_R1
> Mar 14 16:20:53 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x #3: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_R1
> Mar 14 16:20:53 gatekeeper pluto[4146]: "pax_square"[1]
> 66.225.x.x: deleting connection "pax_square" instance with
> peer 66.225.x.x {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0}
>
>
> Thanks
> -Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter McGill [mailto:petermcgill at goco.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:54 PM
> To: Chris Thomas; users at openswan.org
> Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
>
> Hmm, I see that your lan (10.5..), not your wan (66.225..)
> is your default route. Since leftnexthop defaults to your
> default route, this might be your problem.
> I suggest setting the following in ipsec.conf
> conn central-site
> left=66.225.Ubuntu
> + leftnexthop=66.225.Cisco2950
> leftsubnet=192.168.0.0/24
> leftsourceip=192.168.0.20
>
>
> Peter McGill
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Thomas [mailto:cthomas at harkinsbuilders.com]
> > Sent: March 14, 2008 3:43 PM
> > To: petermcgill at goco.net; users at openswan.org
> > Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> >
> > Good to hear my configs are OK, although I guess it would
> > have been better if there was something wrong, so it would be
> > easier to diagnose this.
> >
> > Yeah, my key is specified in that format and no, my Cisco
> > router isn't NAT'ing or filtering any traffic. I'm stumped.
> >
> > My ipsec barf is attached, if anyone out there wants to
> > really help me out. I really do appreciate the assistance
> > here. Hopefully I (we) can get this up and running soon.
> >
> > Thanks very much, and have a great weekend.
> > -Chris
> >
> > From: Peter McGill [mailto:petermcgill at goco.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:17 PM
> > To: Chris Thomas; users at openswan.org
> > Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> >
> > I cannot find anything wrong with your setup.
> >
> > Yes your correct the Ubuntu firewall is blocking/altering nothing.
> > (This is as it should be if you turned it off.)
> > When you get things working you should be able to turn the firewall
> > back on, so long as it allows -p 50 and -p 17 -d 500
> inbound/outbound,
> > and excludes your remote subnet from NAT MASQUERADE/SNAT.
> > iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -d 192.168.36.0/24 -j ACCEPT
> >
> > The pictures cleared a few questions up.
> > Your linksys configs look just fine to me.
> >
> > You put your key in the Ubuntu in /etc/ipsec.secrets, like
> this right?
> > 66.225.UbuntuIP : PSK "my secret text key"
> >
> > Your Cisco 2950 Series isn't by any chance firewall filtering or
> > network address translating the IPSec traffic, or trying to
> > intercept it?
> >
> > My only other suggestion is to do an ipsec barf and post it's output
> > to the list, in an attachment.
> > Maybe someone else can see what your problem is.
> > Best to post in plain text, not everyone can read html mail, and
> > the list digests strip out html mail to links... which I
> never used to
> > bother to read, others might do the same.
> >
> > Peter McGill
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Chris Thomas [mailto:cthomas at harkinsbuilders.com]
> > Sent: March 14, 2008 2:19 PM
> > To: users at openswan.org; petermcgill at goco.net
> > Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> > Sorry about that. Here's the info:
> >
> > When I run the command you gave me below, I get this:
> >
> > root at gatekeeper:/home/administrator# iptables -t filter -L -n -v
> > Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> > root at gatekeeper:/home/administrator# iptables -t nat -L -n -v
> > Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> > root at gatekeeper:/home/administrator# iptables -t mangle -L -n -v
> > Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> >
> > Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> > pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
> > destination
> > root at gatekeeper:/home/administrator#
> >
> > I guess this is telling me that nothing is blocked and there
> > are no rules?
> >
> > I am connecting through the internet. My company is actually
> > the ISP for other companies in our building and the building
> > next to us, so I am using a separate IP space outside of our
> > network to put the Linksys box and set up my test remote
> > site. My Linux server is using an IP in the same subnet as
> > my Check Point firewall, but it is going "around" the
> > firewall. To help explain all of this, I have thrown
> > together a quick diagram of everything. You can access it
> > here:
> > http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/1630007_OpenSwanDiagram.j
> > pg.html. If I have left something out, please let me know.
> >
> > The Ubuntu server and the Linksys router do indeed have their
> > own external IP addresses. Here is my Linksys config:
> > http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/1630052_linksyscfgPage1.j
> > pg.html and
> > http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/1630053_linksyscfgPage2.j
> > pg.html.
> >
> > I am hoping these pics look OK. If you need me to provide
> > additional information, please let me know.
> >
> > Thanks again for all of your help.
> > -Chris
> >
> > From: Peter McGill [mailto:petermcgill at goco.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:50 PM
> > To: Chris Thomas; users at openswan.org
> > Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> >
> > Firewall was merely a place to check, not guaranteed to be
> > the problem.
> > If you can get a console on your Ubuntu, you can check
> > firewall with...
> > iptables -t filter -L -n -v
> > iptables -t nat -L -n -v
> > iptables -t mangle -L -n -v
> >
> > Are you connecting through the internet, or are you testing
> > internally?
> > Do both the Ubuntu server and linksys router have public
> > internet ip addresses?
> > (Not 172.16...172.32... or 10... or 192.168..., etc...)
> > I cannot tell as you completely edited them from your posts.
> > Next time try just masking the end like: 66.11.x.x
> > Testing internally sometimes needs different settings than
> > production internet.
> >
> > Is linksys using DES or 3DES? Should be 3DES & MD5 matching
> > your openswan.
> > Can you show us your linksys ipsec configuration?
> >
> > Peter McGill
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: users-bounces at openswan.org
> > [mailto:users-bounces at openswan.org] On Behalf Of Chris Thomas
> > Sent: March 14, 2008 12:19 PM
> > To: users at openswan.org
> > Subject: Re: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> > OK, I have hit a brick wall here and it's getting a bit
> > frustrating. I have disabled the Linux firewall and the
> > Shoreline firewall on my server and I'm still getting the
> > same error below when I attempt to establish the tunnel. Is
> > this absolutely positively due to a firewall issue or is it
> > possible that I've got something else incorrectly configured
> > somewhere? I am fairly new to Linux so I am administering my
> > Ubuntu server with Webmin. That is what I am using to verify
> > that the firewall(s) are turned off.
> >
> > I have also disabled the firewall on the Linksys box and have
> > examined it's logs. This is what shows up after I hit
> > "connect" to initiate the tunnel:
> >
> > Mar 14 09:33:34 - [VPN Log]: "pax_square" #2: initiating Main Mode
> > Mar 14 09:33:43 - [VPN Log]: initiate on demand from
> > 192.168.36.100:0 to 192.168.0.30:0 proto=0 state: fos_start
> > because: acquire
> > Mar 14 09:34:44 - [VPN Log]: "pax_square" #2: max number of
> > retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_I1. No response (or no
> > acceptable response) to our first IKE message
> > Mar 14 10:08:54 - [VPN Log]: "pax_square" #3: initiating Main Mode
> > Mar 14 10:10:04 - [VPN Log]: "pax_square" #3: max number of
> > retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_I1. No response (or no
> > acceptable response) to our first IKE message
> > Mar 14 10:53:58 - [VPN Log]: "pax_square" #4: initiating Main Mode
> > Mar 14 10:55:08 - [VPN Log]: "pax_square" #4: max number of
> > retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_I1. No response (or no
> > acceptable response) to our first IKE message
> >
> > If it helps, this is my ipsec.conf file on the Ubuntu server
> > running OpenSwan:
> >
> > version 2.0 # conforms to second version of
> > ipsec.conf specification
> >
> > config setup
> > interfaces=%defaultroute
> > uniqueids=yes
> >
> > include /etc/ipsec.d/examples/no_oe.conf
> >
> > conn pax_square
> > also=central-site
> > right=%any
> > rightid=@pax_square
> > rightsubnet=192.168.36.0/24
> > also=linksys-policy
> > auto=add
> >
> > conn central-site
> > left=(external IP of Linux server)
> > leftsubnet=192.168.0.0/24
> > leftsourceip=192.168.0.20
> >
> > conn linksys-policy
> > ike=3des-md5-modp1024
> > esp=3des-md5
> > compress=no
> > authby=secret
> >
> >
> > If it's definitely the firewall, I'll go back to the drawing
> > board and see what I can see.
> >
> > As before, I appreciate the help and patience.
> > Thanks
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Peter McGill [mailto:petermcgill at goco.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: Chris Thomas; users at openswan.org
> > Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> >
> > Check your firewall(s) on both ends, and check the linksys logs.
> > You must allow ipsec (and ipsec encapsulated traffic) in your
> > firewalls.
> > protocol port description
> > 17 500 udp:isakmp
> > 50 esp
> > You must allow the above inbound and outbound on your
> > internet interfaces.
> > You must also allow the subnet-to-subnet traffic.
> >
> > Peter McGill
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: users-bounces at openswan.org
> > [mailto:users-bounces at openswan.org] On Behalf Of Chris Thomas
> > Sent: March 13, 2008 4:06 PM
> > To: users at openswan.org
> > Subject: Re: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> > OK, I changed my Linksys box to 1024 bit and I now have this:
> >
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site IP):500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload
> > [4f4540454371496d7a684644]
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site IP):500: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection]
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site IP):500: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947] meth=110,
> > but port floating is off
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site IP):500: received Vendor ID payload
> > [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but port floating is off
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site IP):500: received Vendor ID payload
> > [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but port floating is off
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site IP):500: ignoring Vendor ID payload
> > [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00]
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[5]
> > (remote site IP) #9: responding to Main Mode from unknown
> > peer (remote site IP)
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[5]
> > (remote site IP) #9: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R0 to
> > state STATE_MAIN_R1
> > Mar 13 16:01:48 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[5]
> > (remote site IP) #9: STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2
> > Mar 13 16:02:28 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[5]
> > (remote site IP) #7: max number of retransmissions (2)
> > reached STATE_MAIN_R1
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> > From: Peter McGill [mailto:petermcgill at goco.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:50 PM
> > To: Chris Thomas; users at openswan.org
> > Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> >
> > There is a mismatch in your options, specifically your
> DH/modp Group.
> > Diffie-Hellman (DH) Group needs to match openswan's ike=*-modp????
> > I'm guessing that your linksys is sending Diffie-Hellmen (DH)
> > Group 1 (768-bit).
> > Openswan will not allow this because it's too weak of security.
> > If you have ike=3des-md5-modp1024 or ike=aes-sha1-modp1024 as
> > I suggested,
> > then change your linksys to use Group 2 (1024-bit) to match it.
> >
> > Peter McGill
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: users-bounces at openswan.org
> > [mailto:users-bounces at openswan.org] On Behalf Of Chris Thomas
> > Sent: March 13, 2008 3:40 PM
> > To: users at openswan.org
> > Subject: [Openswan Users] Getting there....
> > Hello again, everyone. I have configured my Linksys box to
> > connect to my Ubuntu server running OpenSwan, but when I
> > attempt to initiate the connection, my logs on the server at
> > HQ get full of this stuff:
> >
> >
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site external IP):500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload
> > [4f4540454371496d7a684644]
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site external IP):500: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer
> > Detection]
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site external IP):500: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947]
> > meth=110, but port floating is off
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site external IP):500: received Vendor ID payload
> > [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but port floating is off
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site external IP):500: received Vendor ID payload
> > [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but port floating is off
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: packet from (remote
> > site external IP):500: ignoring Vendor ID payload
> > [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00]
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[1]
> > (remote site external IP) #1: responding to Main Mode from
> > unknown peer (remote site external IP)
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[1]
> > (remote site external IP) #1: only OAKLEY_GROUP_MODP1024 and
> > OAKLEY_GROUP_MODP1536 supported. Attribute OAKLEY_GROUP_DESCRIPTION
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[1]
> > (remote site external IP) #1: no acceptable Oakley Transform
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[1]
> > (remote site external IP) #1: sending notification
> > NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN to (remote site external IP):500
> > Mar 13 15:31:54 gatekeeper pluto[11850]: "pax_square"[1]
> > (remote site external IP): deleting connection "pax_square"
> > instance with peer (remote site external IP) {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0}
> >
> > I am assuming that it has something to do with the Preshared
> > key that I am using, but I am not too sure how to go about
> > fixing it. I do not want to be a nuisance, but can anyone
> > give me a (another) push in the right direction?
> >
> > I appreciate your patience.
> > -Chris
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 30710 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.openswan.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20080317/1d71c777/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the Users
mailing list