[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: IPsec vs ssh
On Nov 12, 3:51am, Darren Reed wrote:
} On 11/11/2013 9:25 PM, John Nemeth wrote:
} > } Connectivity between the two endpoints exists well enough to support ssh
} > } between them.
} > }
} > } If it helps, let me rewrite the above like this:
} > }
} > } spdadd 126.96.36.199/32 10.1.1.0/24 icmp -P in ipsec
} > } spdadd 10.1.1.0/24 188.8.131.52/32 icmp -P out ipsec
} > With a private address as one of the tunnel endpoints, are
} > you trying do to NAT-T? Last I checked, that didn't work, and I
} > don't know if it has been fixed (there have been several attempts).
} > I'm assuming that you can ping from 10.1.1.1 to 184.108.40.206...
} Yes, I'm trying to do NAT-T but I'm using KAME, not FAST_IPSEC.
In my various tests, I've nevered had NAT-T work with either.
I will note that my tests were done with a Cisco router as the
remote endpoint. Although not 100% certain, I believe NAT-T is
} > } > Also, just encrypting icmp is next to useless.
} > }
} > } Encrypting only icmp is perfect for testing until the configuration
} > } is correct and properly operationalised.
} > True enough. Does the tunnel come up and work? Can you ping
} > both directions through the tunnel?
Then this is the real problem: you don't have a viable tunnel.
You might want to use "setkey -D" and/or "setkey -D -P" to
see what the kernel is seeing.
}-- End of excerpt from Darren Reed
Main Index |
Thread Index |