On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Aaron Mason <simplersolut...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking to mess around with IPSec for quite some time now,
> and sadly all I've had is perpetual failure.
>
> I found this guide - http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1859 - and
> followed it apart from the NAT bits.  When the two endpoints try to
> talk, they fall over in a heap.
>
> The systems in use are both VMware VMs with three host-only networks -
> one each for the "local" network and one for both to use as an
> "external" network.
>
> What I hope to achieve is this:
>
>    Host-only
> (192.168.120.0/24)
>       /|\
>        |
>       \|/
>  obsd-ipsec-left
> (192.168.120.130/
>  10.255.255.5)
>       /|\
>        |
>       \|/
>  10.255.255.0/30
>       /|\
>        |
>       \|/
>  obsd-ipsec-right
>  (192.168.33.7/
>  10.255.255.6)
>       /|\
>        |
>       \|/
>    Host-only
>  (192.168.33.0/24)
>
> After I ran isakmpd -K -d and used ipsecctl to set the config up, I
> got these messages:
>
> <snip>
>
> The listing of ipsec.conf is as follows:
>
> obsd-ipsec-left:
> ike esp from 192.168.120.0/24 to 192.168.33.0/24 peer 10.255.255.6
> ike esp from 10.255.255.5 to 192.168.33.0/24 peer 10.255.255.6
> ike esp from 10.255.255.5 to 10.255.255.6
>
> obsd-ipsec-right:
> ike esp from 192.168.33.0/24 to 192.168.120.0/24 peer 10.255.255.5
> ike esp from 10.255.255.6 to 192.168.120.0/24 peer 10.255.255.5
> ike esp from 10.255.255.6 to 10.255.255.5
>
> ifconfig on each side:
>
> obsd-ipsec-left# ifconfig
> lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 33200
>        priority: 0
>        groups: lo
>        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
>        inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
>        inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
> vic0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>        lladdr 00:0c:29:f6:20:76
>        priority: 0
>        media: Ethernet autoselect
>        status: active
>        inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fef6:2076%vic0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>        inet 192.168.120.130 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.120.255
> vic1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>        lladdr 00:0c:29:f6:20:80
>        priority: 0
>        media: Ethernet autoselect
>        status: active
>        inet 10.255.255.5 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 10.255.255.7
>        inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fef6:2080%vic1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
> enc0: flags=0<> mtu 1536
>        priority: 0
> pflog0: flags=141<UP,RUNNING,PROMISC> mtu 33200
>        priority: 0
>        groups: pflog
>
> obsd-ipsec-right# ifconfig
> lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 33200
>        priority: 0
>        groups: lo
>        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
>        inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
>        inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
> vic0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>        lladdr 00:0c:29:e1:29:22
>        priority: 0
>        media: Ethernet autoselect
>        status: active
>        inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fee1:2922%vic0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>        inet 192.168.33.7 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.33.255
> vic1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>        lladdr 00:0c:29:e1:29:2c
>        priority: 0
>        media: Ethernet autoselect
>        status: active
>        inet 10.255.255.6 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 10.255.255.7
>        inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fee1:292c%vic1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
> enc0: flags=0<> mtu 1536
>        priority: 0
> pflog0: flags=141<UP,RUNNING,PROMISC> mtu 33200
>        priority: 0
>        groups: pflog
>
>
> pf.conf is the standard one on both sides.
>
> Any ideas? Both sides run OpenBSD 4.6 release and this was done on a
> fresh install with only bsd{,.rd}, base and etc.
>
> --
> Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict
> I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
>

Ok, I just reread the setup and realised that I set up both sides in
active mode...

I'll reopen this thread when I get my head together -.-

--
Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict
I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse

Reply via email to