| Summary: | Openswan problem with combination different types of connections. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | David Spurek <dspurek> |
| Component: | openswan | Assignee: | Paul Wouters <pwouters> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 6.2 | CC: | ebenes, eparis, omoris |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-07-23 19:46:08 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Since RHEL 6.3 External Beta has begun, and this bug remains unresolved, it has been rejected as it is not proposed as exception or blocker. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. passthrough connections with XFRM/NETKEY should get a higher priority than non-passthrough connections. This is upstream issue https://bugs.libreswan.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83 Development Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal this decision by reopening this request. This has been fixed in libreswan 3.6. |
Problem with combination different types of connections. ipsec.conf look like this: conn testA auto=add authby=secret type=transport left=127.0.0.1 right=127.0.0.1 ike=3des-sha1 phase2=esp loopback=yes conn testB auto=add authby=secret type=passthrough left=127.0.0.1 right=127.0.0.1 ike=3des-sha1 leftprotoport=tcp/10000 loopback=yes It is important the order of calling ipsec auto --route testA and ipsec auto --route testB commands. 1. If ipsec auto --route testB called first and then ipsec auto --route testA, the behaviour is as I expecting (packets on port 10000 are without ipsec) 2. But if I call ipsec auto --route testA first and then ipsec auto --route testB (stricter rule). All packets are with ipsec (on port 10000 too). I am not sure that it is a bug or expected behaviour, but records in ip xfrm policy are same in both cases and in manual pages isn't describe that the order of calling ipsec auto --route is important.