[Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal

Tudor Georgescu Tudor.Georgescu at aardman.com
Wed Nov 26 03:01:30 EST 2008 

Simon, its not a typo, its how you specify your Diffie Hellman group. It uses the same one as the ike, but you can specify. esp=aes256-sha1-modp1024 would report an error, leaving it blank would work exactly the same, getting stuck in the same place.

No matter what I put in esp, it gets stuck in the same place. I change my ike, it complains "Informational Exchange message must be encrypted". Definitely having problems at a later stage. Phase1 and Phase2 protocols at the other end are identical.

Could it be tunnel problems? Or would the tunnel cause it to fail at another stage? What exactly is STATE_AGGR_I2 trying to achieve?

Cheers guys. 

-----Original Message-----
From: simon charles [mailto:charlessimon at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 3:08 AM
To: Tudor Georgescu; bzhang at sonicwall.com; users-bounces at openswan.org
Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal
 

Tudor - is that a typo in esp parameter ? shouldn't it be esp=aes256-sha1-modp1024

conn myvpn

        pfs=yes

        authby=secret

        type=tunnel

        aggrmode=yes

        keyexchange=ike

        auth=esp

        ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024

        esp=aes256-sha1;modp1024

        left=10.0.0.128

        leftsubnet=10.0.0.0/24

        leftnexthop=10.0.0.138

        leftid=my at id.com

        right=<vpn.public.ip>

        #rightnexthop=a.b.c.d

        rightsubnet=w.x.y.z/24

        rightid=<vpn.public.ip>

        auto=start


- Simon Charles - 




Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:47:13 +0000
From: Tudor.Georgescu at aardman.com
To: bzhang at sonicwall.com; charlessimon at hotmail.com; users-bounces at openswan.org








RE: [Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal




Many thanks for the input.



Aaron, the other end has pfs enabled, that is why it was=yes. Setting it to 'no' makes no difference to how far the connection gets.



Simon, the other end is indeed expecting aggressive mode as this is a roadwarrior setup.



Cheers folks,



Tudor





-----Original Message-----

From: Aaron Zhang [mailto:bzhang at sonicwall.com]

Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 1:24 AM

To: simon charles; Tudor Georgescu; users at openswan.org

Subject: RE: [Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal



I  think the phase1 has been established successfully , so it  does not result from the aggressive mode.



Could you disable the pfs=no and have a try ?







Thanks!



Aaron (Bo) Zhang



________________________________



From: users-bounces at openswan.org [mailto:users-bounces at openswan.org] On Behalf Of simon charles

Sent: 2008?11?26? 3:28

To: tudor.georgescu at aardman.com; users at openswan.org

Subject: Re: [Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal







Hi !

    From the logs - openswan is trying to connect using 'aggressive mode' - is the watchguard expecting to connect using aggresive mode ?. Aggressive mode is less secure than main mode - unless you are using a roadwarrior configuration - i would recommend that you use main mode.

      Thanks !



________________________________



Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:33:16 +0000

From: Tudor.Georgescu at aardman.com

To: users at openswan.org

Subject: [Openswan Users] perhaps peer likes no proposal



Hey guys,

I have been struggling with this for a few days now. I've become thoroughly stuck on this on what I believe may be phase2.



I am trying to connect openswan-2.6.19 [left] (and openswan-2.6.19 upto the .19 release) to a WatchGuard Firebox [right].



Many releases ago, this was once possible: http://wiki.openswan.org/index.php/Interop/InteroperatingWatchguard



Unfortunately following many tutorials and the Paul and Ken book has still left me in the dark.



I have been on the #openswan irc channel and they suggested that "perhaps peer likes no proposal" means I'm not matching IKE or ESP properly. I've checked, double checked, and thrice checked both ends, but I'm still getting stuck.



Settings-wise what is still a mystery to me is the tunnel settings. On the Watchguard end, its configured to give me the virtual IP of a.b.c.d, which puts me on the network w.x.y.z/24. I've tried various rightnexthop/rightsubnet settings, but that does not appear to make any changes to the connection. Am I barking up the wrong tree? Does the tunnel have anything to do with "perhaps peer likes no proposal"?



Any explinations of what the following means would also be much appreciated. I.e. what is STATE_AGGR_I2 trying to achieve?

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: retransmitting in response to duplicate packet; already STATE_AGGR_I2

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: discarding duplicate packet -- exhausted retransmission; already STATE_AGGR_I2



Thank you in advance guys and gals.



Tudor



# /etc/ipsec.conf - Openswan IPsec configuration file

version 2.0     # conforms to second version of ipsec.conf specification



config setup

        interfaces=%defaultroute

        nat_traversal=yes

        OE=off

        protostack=netkey

        uniqueids=yes



conn myvpn

        pfs=yes

        authby=secret

        type=tunnel

        aggrmode=yes

        keyexchange=ike

        auth=esp

        ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024

        esp=aes256-sha1;modp1024

        left=10.0.0.128

        leftsubnet=10.0.0.0/24

        leftnexthop=10.0.0.138

        leftid=my at id.com

        right=<vpn.public.ip>

        #rightnexthop=a.b.c.d

        rightsubnet=w.x.y.z/24

        rightid=<vpn.public.ip>

        auto=start



The output was from rel 2.6.18, but I get the same from 2.6.19.



/var/log/messages



localhost pluto[26477]: shutting down

localhost pluto[26477]: forgetting secrets

localhost pluto[26477]: "myvpn": deleting connection

localhost pluto[26477]: "myvpn" #1: deleting state (STATE_AGGR_I2)

localhost pluto[26477]: "myvpn": request to delete a unrouted policy with netkey kernel --- experimental

localhost pluto[26477]: shutting down interface lo/lo ::1:500

localhost pluto[26477]: shutting down interface lo/lo 127.0.0.1:4500

localhost pluto[26477]: shutting down interface lo/lo 127.0.0.1:500

localhost pluto[26477]: shutting down interface eth0/eth0 10.0.0.128:4500

localhost pluto[26477]: shutting down interface eth0/eth0 10.0.0.128:500

localhost ipsec__plutorun: Starting Pluto subsystem...

localhost pluto[27033]: Starting Pluto (Openswan Version 2.6.18; Vendor ID OE}ZvZ at M[OWD) pid:27033

localhost pluto[27033]: Setting NAT-Traversal port-4500 floating to on

localhost pluto[27033]:    port floating activation criteria nat_t=1/port_float=1

localhost pluto[27033]:    including NAT-Traversal patch (Version 0.6c)

localhost pluto[27033]: using /dev/urandom as source of random entropy

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating OAKLEY_TWOFISH_CBC_SSH: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating OAKLEY_TWOFISH_CBC: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating OAKLEY_SERPENT_CBC: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating OAKLEY_AES_CBC: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating OAKLEY_BLOWFISH_CBC: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_hash(): Activating OAKLEY_SHA2_512: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_hash(): Activating OAKLEY_SHA2_256: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: starting up 1 cryptographic helpers

localhost pluto[27034]: using /dev/urandom as source of random entropy

localhost pluto[27033]: started helper pid=27034 (fd:7)

localhost pluto[27033]: Using Linux 2.6 IPsec interface code on 2.6.26.5-28.fc8 (experimental code)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): WARNING: enc alg=0 not found in constants.c:oakley_enc_names

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating <NULL>: Ok (ret=0)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): WARNING: enc alg=0 not found in constants.c:oakley_enc_names

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_add(): ERROR: Algorithm already exists

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating <NULL>: FAILED (ret=-17)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): WARNING: enc alg=0 not found in constants.c:oakley_enc_names

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_add(): ERROR: Algorithm already exists

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating <NULL>: FAILED (ret=-17)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): WARNING: enc alg=0 not found in constants.c:oakley_enc_names

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_add(): ERROR: Algorithm already exists

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating <NULL>: FAILED (ret=-17)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): WARNING: enc alg=0 not found in constants.c:oakley_enc_names

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_add(): ERROR: Algorithm already exists

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating <NULL>: FAILED (ret=-17)

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): WARNING: enc alg=0 not found in constants.c:oakley_enc_names

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_add(): ERROR: Algorithm already exists

localhost pluto[27033]: ike_alg_register_enc(): Activating <NULL>: FAILED (ret=-17)

localhost pluto[27033]: Changed path to directory '/etc/ipsec.d/cacerts'

localhost pluto[27033]: Changed path to directory '/etc/ipsec.d/aacerts'

localhost pluto[27033]: Changed path to directory '/etc/ipsec.d/ocspcerts'

localhost pluto[27033]: Changing to directory '/etc/ipsec.d/crls'

localhost pluto[27033]:   Warning: empty directory

localhost pluto[27033]: Changing back to directory '/tmp' failed - (2 No such file or directory)

localhost pluto[27033]: Changing back to directory '/tmp' failed - (2 No such file or directory)

localhost pluto[27033]: added connection description "myvpn"

localhost pluto[27033]: listening for IKE messages

localhost pluto[27033]: adding interface eth0/eth0 10.0.0.128:500

localhost pluto[27033]: adding interface eth0/eth0 10.0.0.128:4500

localhost pluto[27033]: adding interface lo/lo 127.0.0.1:500

localhost pluto[27033]: adding interface lo/lo 127.0.0.1:4500

localhost pluto[27033]: adding interface lo/lo ::1:500

localhost pluto[27033]: loading secrets from "/etc/ipsec.secrets"

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn": request to add a prospective erouted policy with netkey kernel --- experimental

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: initiating Aggressive Mode #1, connection "myvpn"

localhost pluto[27033]: | setting sec: 1

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection]

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02_n] method set to=106

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: Aggressive mode peer ID is ID_IPV4_ADDR: '<vpn.public.ip>'

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: NAT-Traversal: Result using draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02/03: i am NATed

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: Aggressive mode peer ID is ID_IPV4_ADDR: '<vpn.public.ip>'

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: transition from state STATE_AGGR_I1 to state STATE_AGGR_I2

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: STATE_AGGR_I2: sent AI2, ISAKMP SA established  {auth=OAKLEY_PRESHARED_KEY cipher=aes_256 prf=oakley_sha group=modp1024}

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #2: initiating Quick Mode PSK+ENCRYPT+TUNNEL+PFS+UP+AGGRESSIVE+IKEv2ALLOW {using isakmp#1 msgid:131f6317 proposal=AES(12)_256-SHA1(2)_160 pfsgroup=OAKLEY_GROUP_MODP1024}

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: retransmitting in response to duplicate packet; already STATE_AGGR_I2

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: retransmitting in response to duplicate packet; already STATE_AGGR_I2

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #1: discarding duplicate packet -- exhausted retransmission; already STATE_AGGR_I2

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #2: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_QUICK_I1.  No acceptable response to our first Quick Mode message: perhaps peer likes no proposal

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #2: starting keying attempt 2 of at most 3

Nov 21 18:02:42 localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #3: initiating Quick Mode PSK+ENCRYPT+TUNNEL+PFS+UP+AGGRESSIVE+IKEv2ALLOW to replace #2 {using isakmp#1 msgid:bd4d55d2 proposal=AES(12)_256-SHA1(2)_160 pfsgroup=OAKLEY_GROUP_MODP1024}

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #3: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_QUICK_I1.  No acceptable response to our first Quick Mode message: perhaps peer likes no proposal

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #3: starting keying attempt 3 of at most 3

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #4: initiating Quick Mode PSK+ENCRYPT+TUNNEL+PFS+UP+AGGRESSIVE+IKEv2ALLOW to replace #3 {using isakmp#1 msgid:947f04f5 proposal=AES(12)_256-SHA1(2)_160 pfsgroup=OAKLEY_GROUP_MODP1024}

localhost pluto[27033]: "myvpn" #4: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_QUICK_I1.  No acceptable response to our first Quick Mode message: perhaps peer likes no proposal



- --------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aardman.com



______________________________________________________________________

This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs





__________________________________________________________________

This message has been checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs











- --------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aardman.com



______________________________________________________________________

This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs

__________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs



- --------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aardman.com

______________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openswan.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20081126/47ee73f7/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Users mailing list