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

    IPsec VPN tunnel to a Fritzbox after update to 2.4.4-p1

    IPsec
    6
    33
    3.8k
    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.
    • K
      kuschi
      last edited by kuschi

      Hi,

      For years my VPN connection between my pfSense router and a Fritzbox worked without a problem. After the upgrade to version 2.4.4-p1, pfSense shows the tunnel as inactive after some time, even though the Fritzbox on the other side still shows the connection as active but no routing between the two netwoks is possible.

      Anyone else experiencing the same issue?

      Martin

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

        Hi,

        I just had the same problem on multiple Fritzboxes in ike1 main mode after upgrading to 2.4.4-p1. Enabling "Disables renegotiation when a connection is about to expire." in ipsec phase1 settings on pfsense side solved the problem for now (tunnel Uptime >60 minutes), but more observation in the next days is needed...

        Christoph

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • K
          kuschi
          last edited by

          Hi,

          This change did little to me. Tunnel went down after after some minutes again but I after unchecking "Dead Peer Detection" in phase1, the connection is holding.

          I agree, more observation in the next days is needed...

          Martin

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • K
            kuschi
            last edited by

            Hi,

            Update: So far, any additional tinkering with the settings on both ends (pfsense and Fritzbox) have not shown any improvements yet and resulted always to the same status that the Fritzbox shows the tunnel as alive but no traffic passes thru and the pfsense box shows the tunnel as inactive.

            Anyone else with the same problem? Any other suggestions?

            Martin

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

              Same here (pfSense 2.4.4-p1 with 6490 cable) and no answer!

              @kuschi: could you add "after update to 2.4.4-p1" to the thread title, please? IMHO all Fritzbox-Users should have the same problem right now...

              K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DerelictD
                Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                last edited by Derelict

                Have to see the FULL IPsec logs from pfSense from the time the tunnel disconnects to be able to have any hope of making a determination.

                That will show who is requesting the tunnel be destroyed, and what the result was.

                Disabling re-key should never be required.

                Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                  I hope I got the right passage:

                  Dec 17 09:13:35 charon 04[IKE] <con1000|475> activating new tasks
                  Dec 17 09:13:34 charon 04[IKE] <con1000|475> IKE_SA con1000[475] state change: CONNECTING => CREATED
                  Dec 17 09:13:34 charon 04[IKE] <con1000|475> peer not responding, trying again (3/3)
                  Dec 17 09:13:34 charon 04[IKE] <con1000|475> giving up after 5 retransmits
                  Dec 17 09:12:29 charon 04[CFG] ignoring acquire, connection attempt pending
                  Dec 17 09:12:29 charon 11[KNL] creating acquire job for policy 192.10.10.2/32|/0 === 86.118.66.38/32|/0 with reqid {5}
                  Dec 17 09:12:19 charon 11[NET] <con1000|475> sending packet: from 192.10.10.2[500] to 86.118.66.38[500] (176 bytes)
                  Dec 17 09:12:19 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending retransmit 5 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                  Dec 17 09:11:37 charon 11[NET] <con1000|475> sending packet: from 192.10.10.2[500] to 86.118.66.38[500] (176 bytes)
                  Dec 17 09:11:37 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending retransmit 4 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                  Dec 17 09:11:14 charon 11[NET] <con1000|475> sending packet: from 192.10.10.22[500] to 86.118.66.388[500] (176 bytes)
                  Dec 17 09:11:14 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending retransmit 3 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                  Dec 17 09:11:01 charon 11[NET] <con1000|475> sending packet: from 192.10.10.2[500] to 886.118.66.38[500] (176 bytes)
                  Dec 17 09:11:01 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending retransmit 2 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                  Dec 17 09:10:53 charon 11[NET] <con1000|475> sending packet: from 192.10.10.2[500] to 86.118.66.38[500] (176 bytes)
                  Dec 17 09:10:53 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending retransmit 1 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[NET] <con1000|475> sending packet: from 192.10.10.2[500] to 86.118.66.388[500] (176 bytes)
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[ENC] <con1000|475> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V ]
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[CFG] <con1000|475> configured proposals: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> IKE_SA con1000[475] state change: CREATED => CONNECTING
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> initiating Main Mode IKE_SA con1000[475] to 86.118.66.38
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02\n vendor ID
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID
                  Dec 17 09:10:49 charon 11[IKE] <con1000|475> sending FRAGMENTATION vendor ID

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • K
                    kuschi @CommWest
                    last edited by

                    @commwest Done. I hope it worked :-)

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • DerelictD
                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                      last edited by

                      OK so that is pfSense trying to reconnect and the other side is not responding.

                      We'll need to see the point the tunnel is taken down. You can probably find the approximate time by searching for DESTROYED.

                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                        Dec 17 18:06:25 charon 07[NET] <con1000|549> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:06:25 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending retransmit 2 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:06:18 charon 07[NET] <con1000|549> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:06:18 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending retransmit 1 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[NET] <con1000|549> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[ENC] <con1000|549> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V ]
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[CFG] <con1000|549> configured proposals: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> IKE_SA con1000[549] state change: CREATED => CONNECTING
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> initiating Main Mode IKE_SA con1000[549] to 82.117.73.44
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02\n vendor ID
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending DPD vendor ID
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> sending XAuth vendor ID
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> activating ISAKMP_NATD task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> activating ISAKMP_CERT_POST task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> activating MAIN_MODE task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> activating ISAKMP_CERT_PRE task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> activating ISAKMP_VENDOR task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> activating new tasks
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> queueing QUICK_MODE task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> queueing ISAKMP_NATD task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> queueing ISAKMP_CERT_POST task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> queueing MAIN_MODE task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> queueing ISAKMP_CERT_PRE task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 07[IKE] <con1000|549> queueing ISAKMP_VENDOR task
                        Dec 17 18:06:14 charon 10[KNL] creating acquire job for policy 10.14.113.1/32|/0 === 82.117.73.44/32|/0 with reqid {5}
                        Dec 17 18:05:39 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> IKE_SA con1000[548] state change: CONNECTING => DESTROYING
                        Dec 17 18:05:39 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> establishing IKE_SA failed, peer not responding
                        Dec 17 18:05:39 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> giving up after 5 retransmits
                        Dec 17 18:04:24 charon 10[NET] <con1000|548> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:04:24 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> sending retransmit 5 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:03:42 charon 10[NET] <con1000|548> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:03:42 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> sending retransmit 4 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:03:18 charon 10[NET] <con1000|548> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:03:18 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> sending retransmit 3 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:03:05 charon 10[NET] <con1000|548> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:03:05 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> sending retransmit 2 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:02:58 charon 10[NET] <con1000|548> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:02:58 charon 10[IKE] <con1000|548> sending retransmit 1 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                        Dec 17 18:02:54 charon 12[NET] <con1000|548> sending packet: from 10.14.113.1[500] to 82.117.73.44[500] (176 bytes)
                        Dec 17 18:02:54 charon 12[ENC] <con1000|548> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V ]
                        Dec 17 18:02:54 charon 12[CFG] <con1000|548> configured proposals: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
                        Dec 17 18:02:54 charon 12[IKE] <con1000|548> IKE_SA con1000[548] state change: CREATED => CONNECTING
                        Dec 17 18:02:54 charon 12[IKE] <con1000|548> initiating Main Mode IKE_SA con1000[548] to 82.117.73.44
                        Dec 17 18:02:54 charon 12[IKE] <con1000|548> sending draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02\n vendor ID

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DerelictD
                          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                          last edited by

                          OK that catches the same thing so no good.

                          See if searching for IKE_DELETE finds something more interesting.

                          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                            If 'nothing found' is interesting... :(
                            Any other guesses?

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • DerelictD
                              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                              last edited by Derelict

                              Increase the logging retention for IPsec logs and/or search closer to when a disconnect happened.

                              The logs will tell you who requested the delete and what happened. Without that it's a "who knows".

                              Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                              A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                              DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                              Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                                Sorry, but I'm at a loss here... changed log to raw and got some stuff, saying no acceptable encryption algorithm found.

                                (ignore the obviously wrong ip addresses - they are only placeholders)

                                Here we go:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> no acceptable ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> no acceptable ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> no acceptable ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> config: 192.12.13.1/0, received: 192.12.13.1/0 => match: 192.12.13.1/0
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> selecting traffic selectors for us:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> config: 192.12.13.1/0, received: 192.12.13.1/0 => match: 192.12.13.1/0
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> selecting traffic selectors for other:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> found matching child config "con1000" with prio 10
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> candidate "con1000" with prio 5+5
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> 192.12.13.1/0
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> proposing traffic selectors for other:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> 192.12.13.1/0
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> proposing traffic selectors for us:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[CFG] <con1000|594> looking for a child config for 192.12.13.1/0 === 192.12.13.1/0
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[ENC] <con1000|594> parsed QUICK_MODE request 673042099 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 11[NET] <con1000|594> received packet: from 82.110.36.24[4500] to 192.12.13.1[4500] (260 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[NET] <con1000|594> sending packet: from 192.12.13.1[4500] to 82.110.36.24[4500] (68 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <con1000|594> generating ID_PROT response 0 [ ID HASH ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <con1000|594> IKE_SA con1000[594] state change: CONNECTING => ESTABLISHED
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <con1000|594> IKE_SA con1000[594] established between 192.12.13.1[192.12.13.1]...82.110.36.24[xyz.rubber.com]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selected peer config "con1000"
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> candidate "con1000", match: 1/20/3100 (me/other/ike)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> candidate "bypasslan", match: 1/1/24 (me/other/ike)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> looking for pre-shared key peer configs matching 192.12.13.1...82.110.36.24[xyz.rubber.com]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <594> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ ID HASH ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[NET] <594> received packet: from 82.110.36.24[4500] to 192.12.13.1[4500] (84 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[NET] <594> sending packet: from 192.12.13.1[4500] to 82.110.36.24[4500] (212 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <594> generating ID_PROT response 0 [ KE No NAT-D NAT-D ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> candidate "con1000", match: 1/1/3100 (me/other/ike)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> candidate "bypasslan", match: 1/1/24 (me/other/ike)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> remote host is behind NAT
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> local host is behind NAT, sending keep alives
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <594> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ KE No NAT-D NAT-D ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[NET] <594> received packet: from 82.110.36.24[4500] to 192.12.13.1[4500] (196 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[NET] <594> sending packet: from 192.12.13.1[4500] to 82.110.36.24[4500] (132 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <594> generating ID_PROT response 0 [ SA V V V ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> sending NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> sending DPD vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> sending XAuth vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selected proposal: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> configured proposals: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> received proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:DES_CBC/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> proposal matches
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> no acceptable ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> no acceptable ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> no acceptable ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selecting proposal:
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> IKE_SA (unnamed)[594] state change: CREATED => CONNECTING
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> 82.110.36.24 is initiating a Main Mode IKE_SA
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <594> received unknown vendor ID: a2:22:6f:c3:64:50:0f:56:34:ff:77:db:3b:74:f4:1b
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> received draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03 vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> received draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02\n vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> received NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> received DPD vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[IKE] <594> received XAuth vendor ID
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> found matching ike config: 192.12.13.1...xyz.rubber.com with prio 3100
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> candidate: 192.12.13.1...xyz.rubber.com, prio 3100
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> candidate: %any...%any, prio 24
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> looking for an IKEv1 config for 192.12.13.1...82.110.36.24
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[ENC] <594> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V V ]
                                Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[NET] <594> received packet: from 82.110.36.24[4500] to 192.12.13.1[4500] (496 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:47 charon: 09[NET] <con1000|593> sending packet: from 192.12.13.1[500] to 82.110.36.24[500] (176 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:47 charon: 09[IKE] <con1000|593> sending retransmit 5 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                                Dec 17 23:36:05 charon: 10[NET] <con1000|593> sending packet: from 192.12.13.1[500] to 82.110.36.24[500] (176 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:36:05 charon: 10[IKE] <con1000|593> sending retransmit 4 of request message ID 0, seq 1
                                Dec 17 23:35:42 charon: 10[NET] <con1000|593> sending packet: from 192.12.13.1[500] to 82.110.36.24[500] (176 bytes)
                                Dec 17 23:35:42 charon: 10[IKE] <con1000|593> sending retransmit 3 of request message ID 0, seq 1

                                Bought an apu-board for the "fritz-side" of the vpn connection. Better to take one variable (with poor encryption) out of the equitation and have the backups running...

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • DerelictD
                                  Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                  last edited by Derelict

                                  That looks like the fritzbox side is not allowing initiations from you to it, but it is working when that side initiates from them to you.

                                  The no acceptable encryption found is the other side working through its configured PFS groups. It matched at GROUP 1 (MODP_768) which is almost too weak to be useful any more:

                                  Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> selected proposal: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> configured proposals: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768
Dec 17 23:36:53 charon: 09[CFG] <594> received proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768, IKE:DES_CBC/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_768

                                  Note that those logs are newest entries at the top, oldest at the bottom.

                                  So the logs at the bottom are your side trying to initiate and being ignored. Then you receive an initiation from them and it completes. Then it starts negotiating the Phase 2 and the logs cut off before getting to the establishment.

                                  Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                  A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                  DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                  Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                                    (MODP_768) which is almost too weak to be useful

                                    Entirely my opinion. That's why pfsense on both ends should be the best way and that is what I will do now.
                                    Thanks a lot anyway!

                                    DerelictD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • K
                                      kuschi
                                      last edited by Derelict

                                      Here is also my log file. The disconnect happened about one minute after midnight.

                                      Dec 18 00:02:34 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2634 disconnected
Dec 18 00:02:34 	charon 		05[CFG] vici client 2634 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:02:34 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2634 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:02:34 	charon 		05[CFG] vici client 2634 connected
Dec 18 00:02:21 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2633 disconnected
Dec 18 00:02:21 	charon 		13[CFG] vici client 2633 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:02:21 	charon 		13[CFG] vici client 2633 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:02:21 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2633 connected
Dec 18 00:02:06 	charon 		16[CFG] vici client 2632 disconnected
Dec 18 00:02:06 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2632 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:02:06 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2632 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:02:06 	charon 		16[CFG] vici client 2632 connected
Dec 18 00:01:51 	charon 		07[CFG] vici client 2631 disconnected
Dec 18 00:01:51 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2631 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:01:51 	charon 		07[CFG] vici client 2631 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:01:51 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2631 connected
Dec 18 00:01:48 	charon 		09[CHD] <con3000|445> CHILD_SA con3000{418} state change: INSTALLED => DESTROYING
Dec 18 00:01:48 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> IKE_SA con3000[445] state change: ESTABLISHED => DESTROYING
Dec 18 00:01:48 	charon 		09[JOB] <con3000|445> DPD check timed out, enforcing DPD action
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 1223470614 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:38 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 18 00:01:36 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2630 disconnected
Dec 18 00:01:36 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2630 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:01:36 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2630 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:01:36 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2630 connected
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 320752580 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:28 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 18 00:01:23 	charon 		11[CFG] vici client 2629 disconnected
Dec 18 00:01:23 	charon 		11[CFG] vici client 2629 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:01:23 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2629 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:01:23 	charon 		14[CFG] vici client 2629 connected
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2927126343 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:18 	charon 		14[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2708381718 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:01:08 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 180128396 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 18 00:00:58 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 18 00:00:42 	charon 		05[KNL] 10.10.10.1 appeared on em1
Dec 18 00:00:42 	charon 		05[KNL] 10.10.10.1 disappeared from em1
Dec 18 00:00:10 	charon 		16[CFG] vici client 2628 disconnected
Dec 18 00:00:10 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2628 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:00:10 	charon 		16[CFG] vici client 2628 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:00:10 	charon 		16[CFG] vici client 2628 connected
Dec 18 00:00:00 	charon 		07[CFG] vici client 2627 disconnected
Dec 18 00:00:00 	charon 		07[CFG] vici client 2627 requests: list-sas
Dec 18 00:00:00 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2627 registered for: list-sa
Dec 18 00:00:00 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2627 connected
Dec 17 23:59:50 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2626 disconnected
Dec 17 23:59:50 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2626 requests: list-sas
Dec 17 23:59:50 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2626 registered for: list-sa
Dec 17 23:59:50 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2626 connected
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 3418999340 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 17 23:59:44 	charon 		08[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 17 23:59:40 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2625 disconnected
Dec 17 23:59:40 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2625 requests: list-sas
Dec 17 23:59:40 	charon 		11[CFG] vici client 2625 registered for: list-sa
Dec 17 23:59:40 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2625 connected
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 1748552581 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 17 23:59:34 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 17 23:59:30 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2624 disconnected
Dec 17 23:59:30 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2624 requests: list-sas
Dec 17 23:59:30 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2624 registered for: list-sa
Dec 17 23:59:30 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2624 connected
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[ENC] <con3000|445> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 response 1660130927 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[NET] <con3000|445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> nothing to initiate
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[ENC] <con3000|445> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 1660130927 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> activating new tasks
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
Dec 17 23:59:24 	charon 		12[IKE] <con3000|445> sending DPD request
Dec 17 23:59:20 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2623 disconnected
Dec 17 23:59:20 	charon 		10[CFG] vici client 2623 requests: list-sas
Dec 17 23:59:20 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2623 registered for: list-sa
Dec 17 23:59:20 	charon 		10[CFG] vici client 2623 connected
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> CHILD_SA con3000{418} state change: INSTALLING => INSTALLED
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> CHILD_SA con3000{418} established with SPIs c3c51713_i 5077683c_o and TS 192.168.2.0/24|/0 === 192.168.178.0/24|/0
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> SPI 0x5077683c, src xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense) dst xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> adding outbound ESP SA
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> SPI 0xc3c51713, src xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox) dst xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> adding inbound ESP SA
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> using HMAC_SHA1_96 for integrity
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> using AES_CBC for encryption
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[CHD] <con3000|445> CHILD_SA con3000{418} state change: CREATED => INSTALLING
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[ENC] <con3000|445> parsed QUICK_MODE request 134785801 [ HASH ]
Dec 17 23:59:02 	charon 		05[NET] <con3000|445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (60 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (444 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[ENC] <con3000|445> generating QUICK_MODE response 134785801 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[IKE] <con3000|445> received 3600s lifetime, configured 0s
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> selected proposal: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_2048/NO_EXT_SEQ
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> configured proposals: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_2048/NO_EXT_SEQ, ESP:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_2048/NO_EXT_SEQ
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> received proposals: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/MODP_2048/NO_EXT_SEQ, ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_2048/NO_EXT_SEQ, ESP:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_2048/NO_EXT_SEQ
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> proposal matches
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> selecting proposal:
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> no acceptable INTEGRITY_ALGORITHM found
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> selecting proposal:
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> config: 192.168.2.0/24|/0, received: 192.168.2.0/24|/0 => match: 192.168.2.0/24|/0
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> selecting traffic selectors for us:
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> config: 192.168.178.0/24|/0, received: 192.168.178.0/24|/0 => match: 192.168.178.0/24|/0
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> selecting traffic selectors for other:
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> found matching child config "con3000" with prio 10
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> candidate "con3000" with prio 5+5
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> 192.168.178.0/24|/0
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> proposing traffic selectors for other:
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> 192.168.2.0/24|/0
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> proposing traffic selectors for us:
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[CFG] <con3000|445> looking for a child config for 192.168.2.0/24|/0 === 192.168.178.0/24|/0
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[ENC] <con3000|445> parsed QUICK_MODE request 134785801 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[NET] <con3000|445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (508 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[ENC] <con3000|445> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 3490275435 [ HASH N(INITIAL_CONTACT) ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		15[NET] <con3000|445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (92 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[NET] <con3000|445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (76 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[ENC] <con3000|445> generating ID_PROT response 0 [ ID HASH ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> IKE_SA con3000[445] state change: CONNECTING => ESTABLISHED
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[IKE] <con3000|445> IKE_SA con3000[445] established between xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)]...xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[opaundoma.no-ip.biz]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> selected peer config "con3000"
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> candidate "con3000", match: 1/20/3096 (me/other/ike)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> candidate "bypasslan", match: 1/1/24 (me/other/ike)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> looking for pre-shared key peer configs matching xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)...xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[opaundoma.no-ip.biz]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[ENC] <445> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ ID HASH N(INITIAL_CONTACT) ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[NET] <445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (108 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[NET] <445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (324 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[ENC] <445> generating ID_PROT response 0 [ KE No ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> candidate "con3000", match: 1/1/3096 (me/other/ike)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> candidate "bypasslan", match: 1/1/24 (me/other/ike)
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[ENC] <445> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ KE No ]
Dec 17 23:59:01 	charon 		05[NET] <445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (308 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[NET] <445> sending packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] (116 bytes)
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[ENC] <445> generating ID_PROT response 0 [ SA V V ]
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[IKE] <445> sending DPD vendor ID
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[IKE] <445> sending XAuth vendor ID
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> selected proposal: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_2048
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> configured proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_2048
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> received proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512/MODP_2048, IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_2048, IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_2048, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_2048
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> proposal matches
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> selecting proposal:
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> no acceptable INTEGRITY_ALGORITHM found
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> selecting proposal:
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[IKE] <445> IKE_SA (unnamed)[445] state change: CREATED => CONNECTING
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[IKE] <445> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox) is initiating a Main Mode IKE_SA
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[IKE] <445> received DPD vendor ID
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[IKE] <445> received XAuth vendor ID
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> found matching ike config: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)...opaundoma.no-ip.biz with prio 3096
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> candidate: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)...opaundoma.no-ip.biz, prio 3096
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> candidate: %any...%any, prio 24
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[CFG] <445> looking for an IKEv1 config for xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)...xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[ENC] <445> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V ]
Dec 17 23:59:00 	charon 		05[NET] <445> received packet: from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP Fritzbox)[500] to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (IP pfsense)[500] (220 bytes)

                                      (Enclosed in text markdown to eliminate links - Derelict)

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

                                        @kuschi: nice link you inserted instead of your ip-addresses... 👙 😂 (Firefox-User)

                                        K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • K
                                          kuschi @CommWest
                                          last edited by

                                          @commwest Oops, wasn't me intention.... :-O

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • DerelictD
                                            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate @CommWest
                                            last edited by

                                            @commwest said in IPsec VPN tunnel to a Fritzbox after update to 2.4.4-p1:

                                            (MODP_768) which is almost too weak to be useful

                                            Entirely my opinion. That's why pfsense on both ends should be the best way and that is what I will do now.
                                            Thanks a lot anyway!

                                            It looks like it is trying three other (presumably stronger) PFS groups before reverting to group 1. It would not surprise me if those were 14, 5, 2.

                                            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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