Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Ipsec errors please help need this up Monday

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPsec
    26 Posts 6 Posters 33.7k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • H
      hoba
      last edited by

      Please provide info on how the tunnels are setup on each side.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        chrisreston
        last edited by

        Heres the info

        Remote Location

        Interface = WAN
        Local Subnet
        Type - LAN Subnet

        Remote Subnet
        192.168.0.0 /22

        Remote Gateway
        66.17.X.X

        Description
        Remote

        Phase1

        Negotiation Mode
        Agressive

        My Identifier
        My IP Address

        Encryption Agorithm
        SHA1

        DH Key Group
        2

        Lifetime
        28800

        Authentication Method
        Pre SHared Key

        Pre Shared Key
        St0rmw1nd

        Phase2

        Protocol
        ESP

        Encryption Alogorithms
        Rijndael(AES)

        Has Algorithms
        SHA1

        PS Key Group
        2

        Lifetime
        84400

        MAIN SITE
        Interface = SPARKPLUG (second WAN, I have tried both)
        Local Subnet
        Type - LAN Subnet

        Remote Subnet
        10.0.0.0 /16

        Remote Gateway
        168.158.X.X

        Description
        Main
        Phase1

        Negotiation Mode
        Agressive

        My Identifier
        My IP Address

        Encryption Agorithm
        SHA1

        DH Key Group
        2

        Lifetime
        28800

        Authentication Method
        Pre SHared Key

        Pre Shared Key
        St0rmw1nd

        Phase2

        Protocol
        ESP

        Encryption Alogorithms
        Rijndael(AES)

        Has Algorithms
        SHA1

        PS Key Group
        2

        Lifetime
        84400

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          chrisreston
          last edited by

          What i am trying to do is connect my remote office to my main office bot have pfsense installed. I want to be able to get my DHCP from the Main office as well. I just need a tunnel between the two PFsense firewalls in order to connect the two  and make it as one network. Am I missing something here?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            chrisreston
            last edited by

            now im getting this error

            Mar 31 17:38:07 racoon: INFO: delete phase 2 handler.
            Mar 31 17:38:07 racoon: ERROR: phase2 negotiation failed due to time up waiting for phase1. ESP 168.158.228.10[0]->66.17.85.18[0]
            Mar 31 17:37:36 racoon: INFO: begin Aggressive mode.
            Mar 31 17:37:36 racoon: INFO: initiate new phase 1 negotiation: 66.17.85.18[500]<=>168.158.228.10[500]
            Mar 31 17:37:36 racoon: INFO: IPsec-SA request for 168.158.228.10 queued due to no phase1 found.

            would it be easier to just go by a linksys router?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • H
              hoba
              last edited by

              as you are doing this on a multiwan, die you add static routes for the site with the multiwan to the remote IP/32 via the gateway on wan2? There's a thread about that exact same issue already around at the forum.

              I now understand the logs too: the one system is trying to talk to the other system with the dual wan on wan2 but the dual wan system answers at wan1 due to the missing route.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                chrisreston
                last edited by

                I guess I am confused, what if I just have the remote site look for wan1 instead? Would I add the static route in the rules section?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • H
                  hoba
                  last edited by

                  I both firewalls have the tunnels at wan you don't need static routes as it will use the defaultgateway then.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • C
                    chrisreston
                    last edited by

                    still had issues that way.. also one note is that i am using the firewall as a dhcp server on the remote site. I have a dhcp server on the main site. How can I just link the two firewalls and use everything at the main site such as dhcp for the remote site? I am wanting to have the two sites as if they are 1

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • H
                      hoba
                      last edited by

                      You can work with dhcprelay to do that though I probably wouldn't do it that way. If the tunnel fails your clients won't be able to get dhcp. I would set up a second dhcp at the remote office (could be the pfSense) but assign the mainlocations dns server as the first dns to the clients. This way lookups should work forward and backward. As second dns you could assign the local dns forwarder of the pfSense so clients would still be able to access the internet even if the tunnel is down.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • C
                        chrisreston
                        last edited by

                        Ok I am now using a sonicwall firewall at the remote location and the pfsense at the main. I have set everything up and now I am getting the following errors.

                        Apr 1 11:31:35 racoon: ERROR: failed to pre-process packet.
                        Apr 1 11:31:35 racoon: ERROR: failed to get sainfo.
                        Apr 1 11:31:35 racoon: ERROR: failed to get sainfo.
                        Apr 1 11:31:35 racoon: INFO: respond new phase 2 negotiation: 66.93.X.X[0]<=>168.158.X.X[0]
                        Apr 1 11:31:34 racoon: INFO: ISAKMP-SA established 66.93.X.X[500]-168.158.X.X[500] spi:a84321dfbb05a217:2a9e8c8e5d8a57a4
                        Apr 1 11:31:34 racoon: NOTIFY: couldn't find the proper pskey, try to get one by the peer's address.
                        Apr 1 11:31:34 racoon: WARNING: No ID match.
                        Apr 1 11:31:34 racoon: INFO: received Vendor ID: draft-ietf-ipsra-isakmp-xauth-06.txt
                        Apr 1 11:31:34 racoon: INFO: received Vendor ID: draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00
                        Apr 1 11:31:34 racoon: INFO: begin Aggressive mode.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • H
                          hoba
                          last edited by

                          You just made things more complicated. Try this guide, maybe it will help you http://doc.m0n0.ch/handbook-single/#id2608734

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • C
                            clamasters
                            last edited by

                            In my experience you should never use aggressive mode with IPSEC.  1) It's less secure 2) Some of the check and balances (to include the mechanism for logging it) are missing.  Use Main mode.  If you need some closer to realtime help, email the support mailing list or you may be able to use the IRC channel.

                            Curtis

                            http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
                            http://www.builtnetworks.com

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • F
                              fastcon68
                              last edited by

                              Chris,
                              Would a lilnksys be easier? NO.  Setting up tunnels with anything other than PfSense is difficuilt.  I used 10 different router and firewalls.  PfSense has been the simplist to setup and get working.  I have netgear, symantec vpn100 and 320's in service all work but some can really pull your hair out.

                              I had this happen several times to me.  It looks like you have a couple of things going on.  I would make sure that you have your phase 1 settings correct.  I recently had a similiar issue.  I found that one end had was using agressive instead of MAIN.  I ended up removing all settings  on that router and rebuilding the tunnel after flashing the firmware.

                              Send me a email to ron.carter@cartersweb.net and see what I can do to give you a hand.  I do agree with clamasters use MAIN mode.  I can give you a call tomorrow after 6:00 PM east coast time.  We should be able to get it to work with out too much trouble.

                              I have my PFSense firewall up for over a year now with limited problems most have been self inflicted.  But I have been able to recover.  The forum is a great place to get issues resolved and too get help.

                              RC

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • L
                                liilo
                                last edited by

                                hoba,

                                could you please link to the existing thread for multiwan ipsec vpn route issue.

                                I'm not able to find it by using search form.

                                thanks.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • H
                                  hoba
                                  last edited by

                                  Not sure which thread exactly you mean but that topic is covered multiple time like for example here: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,8476.msg47573.html#msg47573

                                  However I don't think that this has something to do with the issue we are seeing here.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.