I have a similar problem, but in my case I have two wan connections each with its own WAN IP going back to the same remote site, configured with two different tunnels. I setup FQDN's as the identifiers but with no results. I can establish the the first Tunnel without a problem, but the second tunnel always fails phase 2 because phase 1 is incorrect. Oddly enough if I enable the second tunnel first then start the first tunnel and everything is great until the timetolive expires then I have the same problem.
For Example
Tunnel 1
Local IP : 1.1.1.1
Remote IP : 2.3.4.5
Tunnel 2
Local IP : 2.2.2.2
Remote IP : 2.3.4.5
Remote Site Settings
Local IP : 2.3.4.5
Remote IP 1: 1.1.1.1
Remote IP 2: 2.2.2.2
I get this for tunnel 1 and it works
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: INFO: initiate new phase 1 negotiation: 1.1.1.1[500]<=>2.3.4.5[500]
then tunnel 2 initiates and I get this, which never establishes unless I enabled it first.
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: INFO: initiate new phase 1 negotiation: 2.2.2.2[500]<=>2.3.4.5[500]
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: INFO: IPsec-SA request for 2.3.4.5 queued due to no phase1 found.
racoon: ERROR: none message must be encrypted
racoon: ERROR: phase1 negotiation failed due to time up. 750d4b65cf70f0f1:07e5cb35030fb0fd
racoon: INFO: delete phase 2 handler.
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: ERROR: phase2 negotiation failed due to time up waiting for phase1. ESP 2.3.4.5[0]->2.2.2.2[0]
racoon: ERROR: ignore information because ISAKMP-SAhas not been established yet.
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: NOTIFY: the packet is retransmitted by 2.3.4.5[500] (1).
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: WARNING: the packet retransmitted in a short time from 2.3.4.5[500]
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: NOTIFY: the packet is retransmitted by 2.3.4.5[500] (1).
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: WARNING: the packet retransmitted in a short time from 2.3.4.5[500]
racoon: [Tunnel 1]: NOTIFY: the packet is retransmitted by 2.3.4.5[500] (1).
Shouldn't I receive this?
racoon: [Tunnel 2]: INFO: initiate new phase 1 negotiation: 2.2.2.2[500]<=>2.3.4.5[500]
Have you been able to find a fix for this, or I am doing something wrong here?