[Openswan Users] Major problems with multiple tunnels on Fedora 11

Marek Greško gresko at thr.sk
Fri Jun 26 15:16:15 EDT 2009

On Pi 26. Jún 2009 18:09:51 you wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Marek Greško wrote:
> > since I upgraded from F10 (openswan-2.6.19) to F11
> > (openswan-2.6.21+nss.patch) I have problems to instantiate multiple
> > tunnels between the gateway and the roadwarrior. Prior to upgrade
> > everything worked. Except from some time ipsec.exe on Windows XP
> > instantiates only the first tunnel it finds (it used to work before). My
> > question is not about that but if anybody knows I will be happy on any
> > advice on that.
> ipsec.exe is a really old tool. ipsectool is newer, but AFAIK only works
> for one tunnel. Openswan could be ported to Windows, though really only
> on the newer ones with the netsh command (Vista and up I believe?)

The ipsec.exe is the only non-gui tool for XP I am aware of and it was 
supporting multiple tunnel configuration. It suddenly stop to. I do not know 

On Vista we use netsh without openswan successfully.

> > Windows XP instantiates tunnel B.
> >
> > I get this in the log:
> >
> > Jun 26 11:02:42 gw pluto[15235]: "A"[1] WinpublicIP #94: the peer
> > proposed: Brightiprange:0/0 -> WinpublicIP:0/0
> > Jun 26 11:02:42 gw pluto[15235]: "A"[1] WinpublicIP #94: peer proposal
> > was reject in a virtual connection policy because:
> > Jun 26 11:02:42 gw pluto[15235]: "A"[1] WinpublicIP #94: a private
> > network virtual IP was required, but the proposed IP did not match our
> > list (virtual_private=)
> > ... this is probably due to public ip on windows without NAT and is
> > probably harmless, am I right?
> I cannot really read this with the information hiding. If it tried to
> propose with its clearly wrong. If it is not behind nat, you
> prob don't have rightsubnet=vhost containing "%no" (for non nat) or if
> you are behind nat, and have rightsubnet=vhost:%no,%priv, then the internal
> range of the client is not part of virtual_private=

I was doing bad consequences. The problem did not arise on upgrade to openswan 
2.6.21 I only did not check whether it works with 2.6.19 without NAT. But I am 
almost sure it did with openswan 2.4. The current state is that it works when 
using NAT, but not working without NAT. I have set up:


The virtual_private is configured properly. What leftsubnet should I use if I 
want the tunnel to work for the same device whether it is natted or not?

Or is it necessary to create separate tunnel definition for non-natted client?

> > The problem arises when gw thinks Windos is trying to instantiate tunnel
> > A, not B. How can I override this? It used to work before upgrade.
> Since the phase 1 for A and B are the same, you are misled in thinking
> the gateway is mistaken. When doing phase1 there is no difference, so the
> connection name it picks can be iether one of the two. Once it gets to
> phase 2, it should switch to the right conn.

OK. My fault. So the problem arises some where in the "proposed IP did not 
match our list (virtual_private=)".


> Paul

More information about the Users mailing list