similar to: QoS success with FC3 native 2.6 ipsec

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

I've just wrote a lenghty email on Fedora ML as reply to Phillip who seems to be in the same trouble as myself... Found that while searching all mailing list archives and bugzillas I could think off (not really successfully, many people with same problems, no answers other than "works for me" -- glad to hear it works for somebody else, but it would be nice if he/she was a bit

hello i am trying to set up ipsec in my network, for now just between two hosts, using to use AH & ESP in tunnel mode to get all of packet encrypted. keys are negotiated with racoon. mayby using tunnel mode in this case can seems strange, but i know what i am doing. after setting up everything i have done few tests with ping & tcpdump. but the results are very suprising. bellow is what i

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

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:

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 all, I am working with kernel 2.2.20 with the necessary options configured into the kernel to support all of the wonderfully fancy routing features: - routing based on ToS - routing based on fwmark - multiple routing tables This same kernel is in use elsewhere, and is routing based on fwmark with success. This leads me to believe that my kernel is OK and that I have another

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

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

Hello. I try to configure IPSEC to bybass ssh protocol. For example: setkey -FP setkey -F setkey -c << EOF spdadd 10.1.1.1/32 10.6.10.50[22] tcp -P in none ; spdadd 10.1.1.1/32 10.6.10.50 tcp -P in ipsec ah/transport//require ; EOF (Pass incoming ssh packets to 10.6.10.50, block other tcp packets) This works under fresh 7-CURRENT(FAST_IPSEC). On fresh 6-STABLE (neither FAST_IPSEC nor

Here''s a challenging problem for you experts to tackle: I''m trying to shape traffic going into an IPSEC interface which then goes over a DSL PPPoE interface. I figure I need to shape the DSL interface to keep it''s hardware queue mostly empty, and to

[ sorry for cross-posting this to newbies and users, but I''m a bit desperate to get this resolved ] This is strange... I had this working before without any problems, and recently we started to have some odd issues. I can''t be sure exactly what has changed as I''m unfortunately not the only person with access to the server. {sigh} The problem is that I pretty much

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

Hi, I would like to shape incomming traffic on eth0 and ipsec0 (binded to eth0). I need to set minimal bandwidth to some packets going via ipsec0 interface. It is running fine when I simply mark the ESP (protocol 50) packets in the PREROUTING chain - means all ipsec packets are shaped. Like: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p 50 -j MARK --set-mark 30 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i

Hi All, I need to establish an IPSec tunnel between two FreeBSD systems, using IPv6 addresses.The connetcion is host-to-host between two FreeBSD( RELEASE 4.11) systems with KAME IPSec implementation. I tried to establish the connection, but it has some problems which are explained below. |----------------->| host1-[mohan]| |host2-[ram]

> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Panula [mailto:greg.panula@dolaninformation.com] > Sent: 12 May 2003 11:10 > To: Matthew Braithwaite > Cc: stable@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: iHEADS UP: ipsec packet filtering change > > You don't really need the gif tunnels for ipsec. Gif is more geared > towards ipv4 <=> ipv6 type tunnels. A few of ipsec

Hi All, I need to establish an IPSec tunnel between two FreeBSD systems using IPv6 addresses.The connetcion is host-to-host between two FreeBSD( RELEASE 4.11) systems with KAME IPSec implementation. |----------------->| host1-[mohan]| |host2-[ram] |<-----------------| host1 IPv6 address : fe80::2b0:d0ff:fe6f:dfa0 host2 IPv6 address :

Hi all :-) I have a problem with my current configuration of ipsec. I''m using ipsec with kernel 2.6 and racoon. I have two computers linked by wireless cards. The first (192.168.1.1 Zeus) is connected to internet through a DSL modem and the second (192.168.1.2 Memphis) is accessing internet through the first. I want with ipsec to encrypt all datas between the two computers. I can

This one is a bit complex so if no help is forthcoming, I understand. I have 2 shorewall firewalls (1.3.13) up and running. (both machines running Gentoo Linux 1.4_rc2) I have freeswan (1.98) running on each of them. I have squid setup as a caching/filtering server on each of them. Each of them was originally setup using the Two-interface Quick Start Guide. Then the Squid guide and then the IPSEC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In this release: 1) Dynamic Ipsec Zones now work. 2) Output Traffic Accounting by user/group is supported (thanks to Tuomas Jormola). 3) The following negative test options are added in /etc/shorewall/ipsec and /etc/shorewall/masq: reqid!=<number> spi!=<number> proto!=esp|ah|ipcomp mode!=tunnel|transport