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

    IPSec troubles

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.2 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    22 Posts 3 Posters 26.5k 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.
    • M
      miken32
      last edited by

      @ermal:

      You need to show the logs from pfSense side.

      I did that on the second post. @cmb told me to post logs from the Cisco side :)

      FWIW, here's what the ipsec.conf looks like at the moment:

      
      conn con1
      	fragmentation = yes
      	keyexchange = ikev2
      	reauth = yes
      	forceencaps = no
      	rekey = yes
      	reqid = 1
      	installpolicy = yes
      	type = tunnel
      	dpdaction = restart
      	dpddelay = 10s
      	dpdtimeout = 60s
      	auto = route
      	left = 1.2.3.4
      	right = 9.8.7.6
      	leftid = 1.2.3.4
      	ikelifetime = 28800s
      	lifetime = 3600s
      	rightsubnet = 192.168.242.0/24
      	leftsubnet = 192.168.244.0/24
      	ike = aes256-sha512-modp2048!
      	esp = aes256-sha512-modp2048,aes256gcm128-sha512-modp2048!
      	leftauth = psk
      	rightauth = psk
      	rightid = 9.8.7.6
      
      
      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cmb
        last edited by

        The source of the issue is definitely the "Crypto Map Policy not found for remote traffic selector" log from the ASA. As to why, probably a better question for a Cisco forum. Your crypto map looks like it matches what the ASA claims doesn't match.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          miken32
          last edited by

          @cmb:

          The source of the issue is definitely the "Crypto Map Policy not found for remote traffic selector" log from the ASA. As to why, probably a better question for a Cisco forum. Your crypto map looks like it matches what the ASA claims doesn't match.

          Ok, thanks for checking it out. Will report back if it does turn out to be anything with pfSense. Using IKE v1 in the meantime…

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            miken32
            last edited by

            I think this is an issue with the pfSense…

            Here's a partial debug trace of the pfSense trying to initiate a connection. The tunnel is down, and I try to ping a host in the remote subnet. This brings up phase 1 of the tunnel but not phase 2 (or whatever the IKEv2 terms are.)

            
            IKEv2-PROTO-2: (153): Received Packet [From 1.2.3.4:4500/To 9.8.7.6:500/VRF i0:f0] 
            (153): Initiator SPI : 8CE2615A4BA17050 - Responder SPI : 3A1657181A5F8FB2 Message id: 1
            (153): IKEv2 IKE_AUTH Exchange REQUESTIKEv2-PROTO-3: (153): Next payload: ENCR, version: 2.0 (153): Exchange type: IKE_AUTH, flags: INITIATOR (153): Message id: 1, length: 464(153):  
            Payload contents: 
            (153): REAL Decrypted packet:(153): Data: 376 bytes
            (153):  IDi(153):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 12
            (153):     Id type: IPv4 address, Reserved: 0x0 0x0
            (153): 
            (153):      b8 45 a9 a2
            (153):  NOTIFY(INITIAL_CONTACT)(153):   Next payload: IDr, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (153):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: INITIAL_CONTACT
            (153):  IDr(153):   Next payload: AUTH, reserved: 0x0, length: 12
            (153):     Id type: IPv4 address, Reserved: 0x0 0x0
            (153): 
            (153):      a2 d4 ca 7e
            (153):  AUTH(153):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 72
            (153):     Auth method PSK, reserved: 0x0, reserved 0x0
            (153): Auth data: 64 bytes
            (153):  NOTIFY(ESP_TFC_NO_SUPPORT)(153):   Next payload: SA, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (153):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: ESP_TFC_NO_SUPPORT
            (153):  SA(153):   Next payload: TSi, reserved: 0x0, length: 156
            (153):   last proposal: 0x2, reserved: 0x0, length: 40
              Proposal: 1, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 12
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: AES-CBC
            (153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA96
            (153):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (153):   last proposal: 0x2, reserved: 0x0, length: 40
              Proposal: 2, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 12
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: AES-CBC
            (153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA512
            (153):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (153):   last proposal: 0x2, reserved: 0x0, length: 36
              Proposal: 3, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: 3DES
            (153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA96
            (153):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (153):   last proposal: 0x0, reserved: 0x0, length: 36
              Proposal: 4, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: 3DES
            (153):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA512
            (153):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (153):  TSi(153):   Next payload: TSr, reserved: 0x0, length: 40
            (153):     Num of TSs: 2, reserved 0x0, reserved 0x0
            (153):     TS type: TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE, proto id: 0, length: 16
            (153):     start port: 0, end port: 65535
            (153):     start addr: 1.2.3.4, end addr: 1.2.3.4
            (153):     TS type: TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE, proto id: 0, length: 16
            (153):     start port: 0, end port: 65535
            (153):     start addr: 192.168.244.0, end addr: 192.168.244.255
            (153):  TSr(153):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 40
            (153):     Num of TSs: 2, reserved 0x0, reserved 0x0
            (153):     TS type: TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE, proto id: 0, length: 16
            (153):     start port: 0, end port: 65535
            (153):     start addr: 9.8.7.6, end addr: 9.8.7.6
            (153):     TS type: TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE, proto id: 0, length: 16
            (153):     start port: 0, end port: 65535
            (153):     start addr: 192.168.242.0, end addr: 192.168.242.255
            (153):  NOTIFY(Unknown - 16396)(153):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (153):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: Unknown - 0
            (153):  NOTIFY(Unknown - 16397)(153):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 12
            (153):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: Unknown - 0
            (153): 
            (153):      c0 a8 f4 01
            (153):  NOTIFY(Unknown - 16417)(153):   Next payload: NONE, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (153):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: Unknown - 0
            (153):  
            (153): Decrypted packet:(153): Data: 464 bytes
            
            

            Note the public IP addresses are included in the 'TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE' section. The resulting failure looks like this:

            
            IKEv2-PROTO-1: (153): Failed to find a matching policy
            IKEv2-PROTO-1: (153): Received Policies: 
            IKEv2-PROTO-1: (153): Failed to find a matching policy
            IKEv2-PROTO-1: (153): Expected Policies: 
            IKEv2-PROTO-5: (153): Failed to verify the proposed policies
            IKEv2-PROTO-1: (153): Failed to find a matching policy
            
            

            Here is what happens, moments later, when I manually start the tunnel from the IPSec status page:

            
            IKEv2-PROTO-2: (154): Received Packet [From 1.2.3.4:4500/To 9.8.7.6:500/VRF i0:f0] 
            (154): Initiator SPI : A1D8249CBDC4008D - Responder SPI : 8E4623ACA44823B8 Message id: 1
            (154): IKEv2 IKE_AUTH Exchange REQUESTIKEv2-PROTO-3: (154): Next payload: ENCR, version: 2.0 (154): Exchange type: IKE_AUTH, flags: INITIATOR (154): Message id: 1, length: 432(154):  
            Payload contents: 
            (154): REAL Decrypted packet:(154): Data: 344 bytes
            (154):  IDi(154):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 12
            (154):     Id type: IPv4 address, Reserved: 0x0 0x0
            (154): 
            (154):      b8 45 a9 a2
            (154):  NOTIFY(INITIAL_CONTACT)(154):   Next payload: IDr, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (154):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: INITIAL_CONTACT
            (154):  IDr(154):   Next payload: AUTH, reserved: 0x0, length: 12
            (154):     Id type: IPv4 address, Reserved: 0x0 0x0
            (154): 
            (154):      a2 d4 ca 7e
            (154):  AUTH(154):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 72
            (154):     Auth method PSK, reserved: 0x0, reserved 0x0
            (154): Auth data: 64 bytes
            (154):  NOTIFY(ESP_TFC_NO_SUPPORT)(154):   Next payload: SA, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (154):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: ESP_TFC_NO_SUPPORT
            (154):  SA(154):   Next payload: TSi, reserved: 0x0, length: 156
            (154):   last proposal: 0x2, reserved: 0x0, length: 40
              Proposal: 1, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 12
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: AES-CBC
            (154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA96
            (154):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (154):   last proposal: 0x2, reserved: 0x0, length: 40
              Proposal: 2, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 12
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: AES-CBC
            (154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA512
            (154):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (154):   last proposal: 0x2, reserved: 0x0, length: 36
              Proposal: 3, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: 3DES
            (154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA96
            (154):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (154):   last proposal: 0x0, reserved: 0x0, length: 36
              Proposal: 4, Protocol id: ESP, SPI size: 4, #trans: 3(154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 1, reserved: 0x0, id: 3DES
            (154):     last transform: 0x3, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 3, reserved: 0x0, id: SHA512
            (154):     last transform: 0x0, reserved: 0x0: length: 8
                type: 5, reserved: 0x0, id: Don't use ESN
            (154):  TSi(154):   Next payload: TSr, reserved: 0x0, length: 24
            (154):     Num of TSs: 1, reserved 0x0, reserved 0x0
            (154):     TS type: TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE, proto id: 0, length: 16
            (154):     start port: 0, end port: 65535
            (154):     start addr: 192.168.244.0, end addr: 192.168.244.255
            (154):  TSr(154):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 24
            (154):     Num of TSs: 1, reserved 0x0, reserved 0x0
            (154):     TS type: TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE, proto id: 0, length: 16
            (154):     start port: 0, end port: 65535
            (154):     start addr: 192.168.242.0, end addr: 192.168.242.255
            (154):  NOTIFY(Unknown - 16396)(154):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (154):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: Unknown - 0
            (154):  NOTIFY(Unknown - 16397)(154):   Next payload: NOTIFY, reserved: 0x0, length: 12
            (154):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: Unknown - 0
            (154): 
            (154):      c0 a8 f4 01
            (154):  NOTIFY(Unknown - 16417)(154):   Next payload: NONE, reserved: 0x0, length: 8
            (154):     Security protocol id: Unknown - 0, spi size: 0, type: Unknown - 0
            (154):  
            (154): Decrypted packet:(154): Data: 432 bytes
            
            

            No public IP addresses included, and this connection succeeds. Thoughts?

            EDIT: Here are pfSense logs for these two connection attempts. Aside from the different size of the packets sent, note the line 'establishing CHILD_SA con1{1}' in the failed attemps, versus 'establishing CHILD_SA con1' in the successful attempt. Does this indicate anything useful?

            
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 16[KNL] creating acquire job for policy 1.2.3.4/32|/0 === 9.8.7.6/32|/0 with reqid {1}
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>initiating IKE_SA con1[28] to 9.8.7.6
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] initiating IKE_SA con1[28] to 9.8.7.6
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[ENC] generating IKE_SA_INIT request 0 [ SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) N(FRAG_SUP) ]
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[NET] sending packet: from 1.2.3.4[500] to 9.8.7.6[500] (440 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[NET] received packet: from 9.8.7.6[500] to 1.2.3.4[500] (585 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[ENC] parsed IKE_SA_INIT response 0 [ SA KE No V V V N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) V ]
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>received Cisco Delete Reason vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] received Cisco Delete Reason vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>received Cisco Copyright (c) 2009 vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] received Cisco Copyright (c) 2009 vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[ENC] received unknown vendor ID: 43:49:53:43:4f:2d:47:52:45:2d:4d:4f:44:45:02
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>authentication of '1.2.3.4' (myself) with pre-shared key
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] authentication of '1.2.3.4' (myself) with pre-shared key
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>establishing CHILD_SA con1{1}
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] establishing CHILD_SA con1{1}
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[ENC] generating IKE_AUTH request 1 [ IDi N(INIT_CONTACT) IDr AUTH N(ESP_TFC_PAD_N) SA TSi TSr N(MOBIKE_SUP) N(ADD_4_ADDR) N(EAP_ONLY) ]
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[NET] sending packet: from 1.2.3.4[4500] to 9.8.7.6[4500] (464 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[NET] received packet: from 9.8.7.6[4500] to 1.2.3.4[4500] (208 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[ENC] parsed IKE_AUTH response 1 [ V IDr AUTH N(NO_PROP) ]
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>authentication of '9.8.7.6' with pre-shared key successful
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] authentication of '9.8.7.6' with pre-shared key successful
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>IKE_SA con1[28] established between 1.2.3.4[1.2.3.4]...9.8.7.6[9.8.7.6]
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] IKE_SA con1[28] established between 1.2.3.4[1.2.3.4]...9.8.7.6[9.8.7.6]
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>scheduling reauthentication in 27865s
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] scheduling reauthentication in 27865s
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>maximum IKE_SA lifetime 28405s
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] maximum IKE_SA lifetime 28405s
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>received NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN notify, no CHILD_SA built
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] received NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN notify, no CHILD_SA built
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] <con1|28>failed to establish CHILD_SA, keeping IKE_SA
            Dec 18 09:38:59 pf-victoria charon: 06[IKE] failed to establish CHILD_SA, keeping IKE_SA
            
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 16[CFG] received stroke: initiate 'con1'
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>initiating IKE_SA con1[29] to 9.8.7.6
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] initiating IKE_SA con1[29] to 9.8.7.6
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[ENC] generating IKE_SA_INIT request 0 [ SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) N(FRAG_SUP) ]
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[NET] sending packet: from 1.2.3.4[500] to 9.8.7.6[500] (440 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[NET] received packet: from 9.8.7.6[500] to 1.2.3.4[500] (585 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[ENC] parsed IKE_SA_INIT response 0 [ SA KE No V V V N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) V ]
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>received Cisco Delete Reason vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] received Cisco Delete Reason vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>received Cisco Copyright (c) 2009 vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] received Cisco Copyright (c) 2009 vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[ENC] received unknown vendor ID: 43:49:53:43:4f:2d:47:52:45:2d:4d:4f:44:45:02
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>authentication of '1.2.3.4' (myself) with pre-shared key
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] authentication of '1.2.3.4' (myself) with pre-shared key
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>establishing CHILD_SA con1
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] establishing CHILD_SA con1
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[ENC] generating IKE_AUTH request 1 [ IDi N(INIT_CONTACT) IDr AUTH N(ESP_TFC_PAD_N) SA TSi TSr N(MOBIKE_SUP) N(ADD_4_ADDR) N(EAP_ONLY) ]
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[NET] sending packet: from 1.2.3.4[4500] to 9.8.7.6[4500] (432 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[NET] received packet: from 9.8.7.6[4500] to 1.2.3.4[4500] (304 bytes)
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[ENC] parsed IKE_AUTH response 1 [ V IDr AUTH SA TSi TSr N(ESP_TFC_PAD_N) N(NON_FIRST_FRAG) ]
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>authentication of '9.8.7.6' with pre-shared key successful
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] authentication of '9.8.7.6' with pre-shared key successful
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>IKE_SA con1[29] established between 1.2.3.4[1.2.3.4]...9.8.7.6[9.8.7.6]
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] IKE_SA con1[29] established between 1.2.3.4[1.2.3.4]...9.8.7.6[9.8.7.6]
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>scheduling reauthentication in 28245s
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] scheduling reauthentication in 28245s
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>maximum IKE_SA lifetime 28785s
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] maximum IKE_SA lifetime 28785s
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>received ESP_TFC_PADDING_NOT_SUPPORTED, not using ESPv3 TFC padding
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] received ESP_TFC_PADDING_NOT_SUPPORTED, not using ESPv3 TFC padding
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] <con1|29>CHILD_SA con1{1} established with SPIs c02da961_i c6c0ab47_o and TS 192.168.244.0/24|/0 === 192.168.242.0/24|/0 
            Dec 18 09:39:34 pf-victoria charon: 09[IKE] CHILD_SA con1{1} established with SPIs c02da961_i c6c0ab47_o and TS 192.168.244.0/24|/0 === 192.168.242.0/24|/0</con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|29></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28></con1|28> 
            
            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              miken32
              last edited by

              @cmb:

              The source of the issue is definitely the "Crypto Map Policy not found for remote traffic selector" log from the ASA. As to why, probably a better question for a Cisco forum. Your crypto map looks like it matches what the ASA claims doesn't match.

              Any input on this? It looks like the traffic selector being sent by StrongSwan is different based on how the tunnel is initiated, which seems like a bug. I'd open a bug but am not sure I could describe it in sufficient detail to ensure a resolution, as I've no experience with StrongSwan.

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

                edit: no, misread that.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  miken32
                  last edited by

                  @cmb:

                  That's this. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4129

                  I only have the single phase 2 entry; does it still apply to me? Thanks.

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

                    No it doesn't in that case, I mis-read your last post. I'm doing some IPsec testing with an ASA right now, will see if that's replicable.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      miken32
                      last edited by

                      @cmb:

                      No it doesn't in that case, I mis-read your last post. I'm doing some IPsec testing with an ASA right now, will see if that's replicable.

                      Any luck with this? Anything more I can do to help narrow it down?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • E
                        eri--
                        last edited by

                        Did you test new snapshots?
                        There have been fixes put in place for various issues especially on IPsec.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M
                          miken32
                          last edited by

                          @ermal:

                          Did you test new snapshots?
                          There have been fixes put in place for various issues especially on IPsec.

                          No improvements with this morning's build. Tunnels have to be manually started or the wrong traffic selector is sent.

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

                            What's wrong about it? It looks like it's sending what you have configured and the ASA is rejecting it. The only issue with interoperability with Cisco IPsec that I'm aware of is this. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4178 Which only applies to IKEv1 and isn't what you're seeing here.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • M
                              miken32
                              last edited by

                              @cmb:

                              What's wrong about it? It looks like it's sending what you have configured and the ASA is rejecting it.

                              Please reread my earlier post at https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=84934.msg469407#msg469407. When pfSense tries to bring up the tunnel automatically, it sends a different traffic selector than when the tunnel is manually started from the status page.

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

                                The latest strongswan release (5.2.1->5.2.2) went into today's snapshots, please retry after upgrading to something from the 7th or newer and report back.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • M
                                  miken32
                                  last edited by

                                  @cmb:

                                  The latest strongswan release (5.2.1->5.2.2) went into today's snapshots, please retry after upgrading to something from the 7th or newer and report back.

                                  Just updated. Tunnel still does not come up on boot, but a subsequent ping test from the pfSense did eventually bring up P1 and P2 successfully. Will do further testing and advise tomorrow, but looks like it's usable now. Thanks a lot!

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

                                    Glad to hear. Tunnels never come up unless there is traffic triggering them, or you have the "Automatically ping host" set in the P2, so sounds like that's the expected end result.

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