search for: ipsec0

Hi, Problem: I want 2 vpn tunnels for 2 subnets over one interface ipsec0. Documentation only describes config for 1 vpn or road warriors. I defined 2 vpn zones ''fre'' and ''swe''. #ZONE DISPLAY COMMENTS net Net Internet zone loc Local Local fre VPN_Fre VPN Fre swe VPN_Swe VPN Swe Interface ipsec0 is tunnel over eth1. Local is eth0. ip...

To stress the urgency and importance of my questions, I am willing to pay $100 to the first person that can provide me with the scripts/ rules that will work in my SnapGear firewalls that will solve the problems I am having. Please see the following post: Linux QOS and prioritization of real-time data (RTP/VoIP) Thank you!

Hello Gurus, I am a small problem with routing and here are the details. Interfaces on my server: * ipsec0 - 172.19.58.94 * tunl0 - 172.19.58.94 * eth0 - 172.19.58.94 Now, the problem is that there is another host 172.19.58.200. All communication to 172.19.58.200 should be through tunl0, and all the data should be secured using IPSec (tunnel mode - because there are more machines on my network and 1...

I am have a shorewall firewall and freeswan ipsec running on a redhat 8.0 Linux gateway machine. I have one working tunnel defined, all works well. I am not clear how to define mutiple concurrent tunnels. I can not add further interface entries as all the tunnels come in on ipsec0, do I still have mutiple zone definitions? some of the tunnels will be dynamic roadwarriors and as such would need a gateway entry in tunnels, which zone to I referrence? Any help greatly appreciated. Regards Roy

I have just setup a VPN connection three sites using IPCOP. Everything seems to be talking ok, apart from browsing the network neighborhood. There are no NT/Win2K/XP servers running on any of the sites, all sites are just running win98 pc's using tcp/ip. I have tried configuring all PC's to be on the same workgroup and setup sharing, but still each site can only see the pc's

...r 00:02:44:7e:04:82 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.1.254/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth1 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:10:dc:34:f5:46 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.2.254/24 brd 192.168.2.255 scope global eth2 41: ipsec0: <NOARP,UP> mtu 16260 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 10 link/ether 00:02:44:6d:97:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 210.23.146.138/30 brd 210.23.146.139 scope global ipsec0 Office 2 has the following interfaces: 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/e...

...I want to replace my hand made setup with shorewall. I use the same FreeS/WAN setup as it is working already. I read through the documentation but there are only examples of 1 static net2net VPN and 3 net2host VPNs. I need 2 static net2net VPNs. Do I need two zones vpn1 and vpn2? In which zone is ipsec0? It is really in both, and how do I declare that? May I configure the 2 gateway IPs of the VPNs or do I have to use 0.0.0.0 ? Thanks in advance, Frerk Meyer System Developer --------------------------------------- Framfab Deutschland AG

Hi, still trying to understand one thing. I would definitely like to tell iptables to accept all packets coming from remote vpn only if they hit the $VIRTUALVPNINTERFACE. I tried -o ipsec0 but this is not working, looks like ipsec0 device doesn't exist or it is not recognized. I red on the Openswan users list, that Linux kernel 2.6 native ipsec don't create ipsec* interface (if I am not wrong this is something backported on kernel 2.4 RHEL3) just add a route to remote ne...

Tuomo Soini wrote: > You don''t happen to read shorewall-devel mailinglist ? I read it -- I just didn''t know what to make of your post and it arrived while I was on vacation. What exactly are you trying to accomplish that Shorewall isn''t doing for you now? e.g. /etc/shorewall/zones rw Roadwarriors Road Warriors /etc/shorewall/interfraces rw ipsec+

...tween two CentOS 5.1 systems, network-to-network with two different 192.168.xxx.0/24 LAN segments. I have gone through the documentation on the centos web site, and have the machines to the point where the /var/log/messages show ``IPsec-SA established'' on both machines after runnig ``ifup ipsec0'' (same ipsec0 on each machine). IP forwarding is configured in /etc/sysctl.conf and in the proper /proc ``file''. ``netstat -rn'' shows a reasonable looking route on each machine with the gateway as the private IP for the internal LAN. The iptables on each machine are to...

...a lot of tests and I have not found anything like it on Google either. I just requested to join the list but have not recieved the opt in mail yet so if you could also copy my address on any ideas that would be great. The traffic is allowed through the firewall and properly directed through the ipsec0 interface. Feb 1 20:54:41 marge kernel: Shorewall:lan2gw:ACCEPT:IN=eth1 OUT=ipsec0 SRC=192.168.60.6 DST=192.168.59.9 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=8107 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=768 SEQ=5063 Feb 1 20:54:46 marge kernel: Shorewall:lan2gw:ACCEPT:IN=eth1 OUT=ipsec0 SRC=192.168.60.6 DST=192...

...connection. A few days ago, portsentry spit out a lot of connections from windows clients (port 135, 445). Ooops. I review my shorewall settings but could not find a mistake. So I took a win-client and established a second connection to the internet and used nmap to scan my linux-box. Wow ! My ipsec0 interface (vpn-zone) was wide open for everyone! If I shut down ipsec the ports accessible from the internet are closed. I still can´t find the configuration error, so I need assistance. Here are the relevant config-files: ------------------------------------------------------ * /etc/ipsec.con...

...------------------- remote network 10.0.0.0/24 - 10.0.0.1 (10.253.0.2) -- tunnel - 192.168.0.0/22 All traffic starts on my side, so if I can SNAT/MASQUERADE packets to the tunnel address (10.253.0.2) it shall work. This would have been possible with FreeSwan, as it created network interfaces (ipsec0, ipsec1..), however with setkey there is no way of making it. The VPN starts on the gateway, simply all traffic destinate to 192.168.0.0/22 should get an SNAT to 10.253.0.2 and go via the tunnel. SNAT however is available only in POSTROUTING chain, and no outgoing interface really exists wit...

...PS. Does anyone know how to tell ipsec not to add the 169.254 network below :( [root@ns1 root]# /sbin/shorewall status > /tmp/status.txt [root@ns1 root]# ip route show 64.42.53.200/29 dev eth0 scope link 64.42.53.200/29 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 64.42.53.202 64.42.53.200/29 dev ipsec0 proto kernel scope link src 64.42.53.202 10.192.139.0/24 via 64.42.53.201 dev ipsec0 10.201.144.0/24 via 10.19.227.193 dev eth1 10.19.227.0/24 dev eth1 scope link 192.168.10.0/24 dev eth2 scope link 172.30.0.0/16 via 10.19.227.190 dev eth1 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth2 scope link 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo...

The second Beta is now available at: http://www.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta ftp://ftp.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta Function from 1.3 that has been omitted from this version includes: 1) The ''check'' command is no longer supported. 2) The MERGE_HOSTS variable in shorewall.conf is no longer supported. Shorewall 1.4 behavior is the same as 1.3 with MERGE_HOSTS=Yes.

Hi, I''m trying to set-up an ipsec tunnel between a Redhat9 box and a Netgear FVS318. When trying to initialise the connection - ifup ipsec0 - I get the error: RTNETLINK answers: Network is unreachable This would lead me to believe shorewall is blocking ipsec. My config is below. The output of ''shorewall status'' is attached. Any help in pointing out if I''ve got shorewall configured wrongly, is much apprecia...

...n 1.98b and Shorewall 1.4.6c in one machine. The 203.7.93.94 is in the DMZ on the other end. (Both ends use the same shorewall and freeswan). I have successfully set up a tunnel between the two network (using a point to point topology, not hub). I added a static routing that redirect 203.7.93.94 to ipsec0. It seems the packet goes to ipsec0 but lost. I can''t get anything from the ulog of the other side. (the otherside policy is set to trust dmz->vpn, and vpn->dmz, just for testing.) Is there any rule I can put in the rules file to do the job? Or I should put a manual iptables script?...

I am new to Shorewall and FreeSwan, please excuse my ignorance I was wondering if someone could help me. I had help getting my FreeSwan running with the following iptables commands: iptables -I FORWARD -s 0/0 -d 192.168.1.0/24 -i ipsec0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -I FORWARD -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0/0 -i eth1 -o ipsec0 -j ACCEPT If I manually run this FreeSwan works, however I am not sure where to put this in /etc/shorewall/tunnels? Could someone help me with what I need to put in /etc/shorewall tunnels if that''s the...

...0 -j SNAT --Extermal IP on Eth2 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/0 -d ! 192.168.0.0/16 -j SNAT --External IP on Eth0 213.32.208.248 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 eth0 213.32.208.248 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 ipsec0 192.168.5.0 213.32.208.249 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ipsec0 217.10.130.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 192.168.128.0 213.32.208.249 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ipsec0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U...

...80 -j SNAT --Extermal IP on Eth2 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/0 -d ! 192.168.0.0/16 -j SNAT --External IP on Eth0 213.32.208.248 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 eth0 213.32.208.248 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 ipsec0 192.168.5.0 213.32.208.249 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ipsec0 217.10.130.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 192.168.128.0 213.32.208.249 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ipsec0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0...