similar to: multiple tunnelling problem

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

Hi, Guus I did some test regarding the points you mentioned below, and yes, you’re right, but some of points may need further adjusted: 1. The destination of IPv4 wouldn’t be changed, Yes I agree, that’s the goal and final destination for the communication. But during the path, it may be encapsulated into another packet(tunnel mode), where the outside IP header is the physical address, but the

IF you are not stuck to IPSec, you might want to take a look at OpenVPN (www.openvpn.org). I found OpenVPN easier to install than FreeSWAN (an IPSEC VPN) and have setup an OpenVPN solution between my German office and our mainoffice in a matter of hours. Thom van der Boon E-Mail: Thom.van.der.Boon at vdb.nl ===== Thom.H. van der Boon b.v. Havens 563 Jan Evertsenweg 2-4 NL-3115 JA Schiedam

Hi, I have what to me is an interesting issue. I am wanting to prioritize (QoS) traffic that will be passing through an IPSec (OpenS/WAN) VPN between two (identical) Linux routers. I know that I can apply the IPSec patches (1-4) to the kernel and IPTables (if they are not already applied by now) filter traffic before and after IPSec encapsulation. My problem is that I don''t know

Hello, My name is Fermín Galán and I''m currently working with IPSec tunnels. Recently, I was setting a IPSec tunnelling sample scenario (maybe the simplest one :), where I observed some strange behaviour that I like to describe in the list, just in the case somebody knows what can be the cause, please. The scenario involves four hosts configured in the following way:

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================================= FreeBSD-SA-06:11.ipsec Security Advisory The FreeBSD Project Topic: IPsec replay attack vulnerability Category: core Module: sys_netipsec Announced:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================================= FreeBSD-SA-06:11.ipsec Security Advisory The FreeBSD Project Topic: IPsec replay attack vulnerability Category: core Module: sys_netipsec Announced:

OK, I''m stumped. I''ve read through most of the LARTC HOWTO and have yet to find a basis for what I need to accomplish. I have a Linux box that controls access to and from the Internet at my workplace. We have a number of remote employees that connect via PPTP and IPSEC to the office''s internal network. Some of these remote employees are currently using SIP phones.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, been awhile since I''ve written. I now have a situation where I get to use traffic shaping for a client. ~ We implemented the WonderShaper script on our own firewall and experienced no problems. I made some modifications to it to add IPSec protocol packets into the 1:10 high priority class using the u32 filter. ~ So far on our

[ -netters, please Cc me or security@ with replies. ] I'm running into trouble integrating dynamic racoon-based IPSec into a network with ipfw and natd. I need to be able to allow VPN access from any address from authenticated clients. I've got the dynamic VPN working, with racoon negotiating SAs and installing SPs, but the problem is that I can't tell whether an incoming packet on

Hi, Could not conceive an working set-up for an IPSEC VPN made with racoon/setkey on which I have one address on my side acting as an SNAT router for all traffic from my network to a network segment on the far side. my network --- my gateway ---------------------- 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

Hello all -- I am trying to get Shorewall, ipsec and RedHat ES version 3 to cooperate. Before posting any specific problems, I thought I''d find out if I have the right stuff to work with. (I''ve gotten ipsec to work flawlessly with Shorewall using RH 8 and 9 kernels, so I have some experience with it. Shorewall 2.0.12 works fine on this ES 3 box, except for the ipsec part)

hi, I can''t get a freeswan 2.02 ipsec x509 connection at work can somebody help me? ************************************************************************************* global situation ************************************************************************************* the linux gateway (chivas) is a single machine 192.168.1.250 with a local net 192.168.1.0/24, a dyn IP via a DSL

I am attempting to create an ipsec tunnel between 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

Hello everybody. I would like to do some kind of shaping inside an ipsec tunnel implemented by Openswan and linux 2.6.18.x with xfrm (no KLIPS): for example, to limit outbound smtp traffic inside the tunnel. Question: where should I attach the qdisc to? Eth0? I''m asking this, because tcpdump only see the ESP packet on the eth0 and not the ''clear'' packet. TIA This is my

Hello, it looks like the usual way to do ipsec on centos5 won't work anymore on centos6 I installed ipsec-tools but an interface type IPsec is not recognized by the kernel ifup ipsec0 Device does not seem to be present, delaying initialization. I am not planning to use the awful OpenSwan, I Want to sue the Kame implementation which was working fine on CentOS5 any hints ? thank you

Hello, I use Julian Anastasov ''routes'' (to be more specific: static_routes, alt_routes and nf_reroute) patches on a 2.4.32 kernel. On the same host I run IPSec. I have discovered after a few hours of networking problems that, when IPSec is enabled on that patched kernel, inspecting packets with tcpdump while arping-ing a host from a network physically connected to this

I just got the list confirmation and noticed it''s text only email so here it is again in plain text. Below is the oringal message. Hi all, I am really struggling with this one, I have built a lot of linux machines using IPSEC tunnels and shorewall gateways. I decied to build a new test machine with Debian running 2.4.25 and Shorewall 2.0.15. I have two subnets on their own switches and