ipsec-tools-0.7.1-6.fc10.i386 (but it's true for Redhat EL with ipsec-tools-0.6.5-9.el5_2.3 as well) If there are multiple networks behind the same tunnel (i.e 10/8 and 192.168/16) it's impossible to establish IPSEC link to both of them at the same time. If the first packet goes to first network proper SAD entries are added and you can communicate with first network. Then you try to communicate with second network, for some reason duplicate entries are getting added to SAD, but connection with second network fails. Flush SAD entries, send first packet to second network and you can work only with it.
Is this a regression? I mean if you try previous releases of ipsec-tools from Fedora (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=160) does it work with some older builds (for example ipsec-tools-0.7-13.fc9)?
No, as I said, this is a problem for Redhat EL as well, I had this problem for awhile (at least since Fedora 5) and I thought this is a limitation of ipsec-tools package, so I was using openvpn instead. But I discovered it does work in FreeBSD (I know I should not brought it up, but I really want it to work in Linux as well) and FreeBSD uses ipsec-tools-0.7.1 with no patches at all. I built a test case at home, I had to use NAT-T configuration, but I checked it without NAT-T and it doesn't work as well. I will attach my configuration files.
Created attachment 328251 [details] racoon.conf on VPN server
Created attachment 328252 [details] racoon.conf on VPN client
Created attachment 328253 [details] setkey.conf on VPN client
There is a similar bug with two tunnels: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481529 I think this is the kernel problem. At least BSD looks to be working with multiple tunnels OK.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
The problem still exists in F11, F12 It is possible to establish an IPSEC link, but IPSEC VPN is very unstable https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481529 I think it is hopeless ho fix Linux IPSEC at all. So I started migration to openvpn, which is more stable & reliable. The only problem - few routers support openvpn, but some do. So I consider Linux IPSEC not fixable on Linux and should not be used at all.
Have you tried openswan instead of ipsec-tools for IPSEC?
No, I did not try openswan because it is not a part of fedora standard distribution. There is no openswan in http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/ I consider local maintainance of a package which is not part of the distribution to be a waste of time. And, looking at symptoms, I believe the problem is not only with ipsec-tools, but with ipsec linux kernel code also. And this is one of the main reason why I consider IPSEC on linux unfixable in principle. To fix IPSEC you need to find a person who: 1. Familiar with ipsec itself, which is complex and bloated by design. 2. Familiar with linux kernel network, because ipsec is tightly integrated with the kernel. 3. Have time and able to work with bug reported, what is hard because bugs are hard to reproduce because of bloat and complexity of ipsec. In this sense migration to openvpn significantly increase the pool of people able to work on it (and fix bugs), because 1. The openvpn standard itself it much simplier, there is much less code. 2. There is no kernel code in openvpn, so no kernel experience is required.
(In reply to comment #10) > No, I did not try openswan because it is not a part of fedora > standard distribution. > There is no openswan in > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/ > I consider local maintainance of a package which is not part of the > distribution to be a waste of time. But it is there and for a long time. For example: ftp://ftp.linux.cz/pub/linux/fedora/linux/releases/10/Everything/source/SRPMS/openswan-2.6.18-2.fc10.src.rpm http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/openswan-2.6.23-1.fc12.src.rpm > And, looking at symptoms, > I believe the problem is not only with ipsec-tools, but with ipsec linux kernel > code also. > And this is one of the main reason why I consider IPSEC on linux unfixable in > principle. I think some kernel IPSEC guys would disagree with you. There are some limitations on ipsec-tools due to ipsec-tools using a deprecated pfkey interface to the kernel. Openswan on the other hand uses the fully supported xfrm API. > To fix IPSEC you need to find a person who: > 1. Familiar with ipsec itself, which is complex and bloated by design. Not that I disagree with that. > 2. Familiar with linux kernel network, because ipsec is tightly integrated with > the kernel. > 3. Have time and able to work with bug reported, what is hard because bugs are > hard to reproduce because of bloat and complexity of ipsec. > > In this sense migration to openvpn significantly increase the pool of people > able to work on it (and fix bugs), because > 1. The openvpn standard itself it much simplier, there is much less code. > 2. There is no kernel code in openvpn, so no kernel experience is required. OK, I am definitely not here to convince you against using openvpn, I like its simplicity too.
I will try openswan
Is there support for openswan in initscripts? ifup-ipsec seems using setkey only.
(In reply to comment #13) > Is there support for openswan in initscripts? > ifup-ipsec seems using setkey only. Avesh, can you please answer how is openswan configured to be started during system startup?
By default, Openswan (specifically pluto) is started at start up. Connection establishment is controlled by /etc/ipsec.conf and /etc/ipsec.d/*.conf . There is a parameter "auto", which if set to "start" in the *.conf files, can also initiate connections at startup. But currently there is no ifup-* script for Openswan. Thanks Avesh
I will look at it, but I did not manage to start openswan right away. I get some strange errors in syslog Nov 19 14:51:14 localhost ipsec__plutorun: 034 esp string error: Non alphanum or valid separator found in auth string, just after "aes256-sha1" (old_state=ST_AA) and this is on these two lines I copied exactly from man ipsec.conf ike="aes256-sha1;modp1024" phase2alg="aes256-sha1;modp1536" this is on ";" after the aes256-sha1
I have sent patches for this upstream, so it will be fixed in next release.
If you put them somewhere I can apply them, or, better option, just create .src.rpm (with the patch) and put it to http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/
This message is a reminder that Fedora 11 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 11. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '11'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 11's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 11 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 11 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-06-25. Fedora 11 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
same problem in F13