On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 03:57 -0700, Clint Pachl wrote:
> Agreed, that is not suitable and I don't do that. I guess I
> misunderstood the point at which your failure was occurring. I believed
> it to be initially or some short time after you started each end point.
> In my experience, I am using
Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 00:51 -0700, Clint Pachl wrote:
Are both end points trying to negotiate? Try using the "passive" keyword
on one endpoint: "ike passive esp ..."
Yes both active. Does that should cause problems?
Here is what I have noticed while watching tcpdump:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 00:51 -0700, Clint Pachl wrote:
> Are both end points trying to negotiate? Try using the "passive" keyword
> on one endpoint: "ike passive esp ..."
Yes both active. Does that should cause problems?
> I have experienced the same issue. I don't know the details of what
> ex
Massimo Lusetti wrote:
I got a VPN network which works quite well, i mean works very well
thanks to OpenBSD and its implementation but i got one end point over
the 6 running which causing me troubles.
The configuration is done with ipsec.conf and is identical to others
which works well.
Here som
I got a VPN network which works quite well, i mean works very well
thanks to OpenBSD and its implementation but i got one end point over
the 6 running which causing me troubles.
The configuration is done with ipsec.conf and is identical to others
which works well.
Here some example config:
ike esp
5 matches
Mail list logo
