Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-03-03 Thread Diana Eichert
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Hans Hoexer wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > @0 C set [Phase 1]:Default=peer-default force > > C set [peer-default]:Phase=1 force > > C set [peer-default]:Authentication=2 force > > C set [peer-default]:Configuration

Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-03-03 Thread Hans Hoexer
Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > @0 C set [Phase 1]:Default=peer-default force > C set [peer-default]:Phase=1 force > C set [peer-default]:Authentication=2 force > C set [peer-default]:Configuration=mm-default force > C set [peer-default]:ID=me.mylan.n

Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-02-22 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2007/02/22 19:38, jared r r spiegel wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > obviously having the same names, the first is overwritten by the second. > > > > Would I be totally going down the wrong route if I were to change > > the hardcoded -default and

Re: isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-02-22 Thread jared r r spiegel
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:09:27AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > obviously having the same names, the first is overwritten by the second. > > Would I be totally going down the wrong route if I were to change > the hardcoded -default and default- section names in ipsecctl/ike.c > to something b

isakmpd, conflict using multiple rules w/o peer address

2007-02-22 Thread Stuart Henderson
I've just been looking at setting up ipsec with multiple endpoints (zyxel 661h, fwiw: the basic connectivity is ok, though I am growing to loathe their web gui and lack of plaintext config). It would be convenient not to wire the remote peers down to static IP addresses, but if I do something like