IPSec issues



  • Hello,

    1. We have IPSec IKEv1 connection between head office and branch office. Head office has pfSense and branch office has MIkrotik Routerboard. Both has the same configurations. Phase 1 is working normal, but sometimes phase 2 becomes multiple which are the same though phase 2 lifetime hasn't expired, it creates new one.

    0_1540746877352_Screenshot from 2018-10-25 23-39-24.png

    2. When ipsec connects, there is 15 minutes difference between rekey and lifetime in phase 2. When Phase 1 lifetime is 86400 and phase lifetime is 28800 on both sides another new phase 2 is being created automatically by pfsense 1 hour 10 minutes before the current phase 2 rekey expires, however current rekey hasn't expired.

    0_1540746916717_Screenshot from 2018-10-27 11-30-14.png

    I reduced lifetime on both sides, phase 1 28800 and phase 2 3600, but it didn't change the result. I noticed that it happens when there is more than one phase 2.

    I am pasting logs here for your review.

    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[NET] <con3000|7> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 85.120.10.230[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[ENC] <con3000|7> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2766240837 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[IKE] <con3000|7> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[IKE] <con3000|7> activating new tasks
    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[IKE] <con3000|7> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[ENC] <con3000|7> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2165248547 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
    Oct 27 12:20:20 	charon 		13[NET] <con3000|7> received packet: from 85.120.10.230[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> CHILD_SA con3000{57} state change: REKEYING => REKEYED
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> CHILD_SA con3000{58} state change: INSTALLING => INSTALLED
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[IKE] <con3000|7> CHILD_SA con3000{58} established with SPIs ce4c784a_i 03fbefba_o and TS 192.168.4.10/32|/0 === 192.168.1.0/24|/0
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> SPI 0x03fbefba, src 94.85.130.10 dst 85.120.10.230
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> adding outbound ESP SA
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> SPI 0xce4c784a, src 85.120.10.230 dst 94.85.130.10
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> adding inbound ESP SA
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> using HMAC_SHA1_96 for integrity
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> using AES_CBC for encryption
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> CHILD_SA con3000{58} state change: CREATED => INSTALLING
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[ENC] <con3000|7> parsed QUICK_MODE request 2929448535 [ HASH ]
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[NET] <con3000|7> received packet: from 85.120.10.230[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (60 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[NET] <con3000|7> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 85.120.10.230[500] (316 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[ENC] <con3000|7> generating QUICK_MODE response 2929448535 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[IKE] <con3000|7> detected rekeying of CHILD_SA con3000{57}
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CHD] <con3000|7> CHILD_SA con3000{57} state change: INSTALLED => REKEYING
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> selected proposal: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_1024/NO_EXT_SEQ
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> configured proposals: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_1024/NO_EXT_SEQ
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> received proposals: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_1024/NO_EXT_SEQ
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> proposal matches
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> selecting proposal:
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> config: 192.168.4.10/32|/0, received: 192.168.4.10/32|/0 => match: 192.168.4.10/32|/0
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> selecting traffic selectors for us:
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> config: 192.168.1.0/24|/0, received: 192.168.1.0/24|/0 => match: 192.168.1.0/24|/0
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> selecting traffic selectors for other:
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> found matching child config "con3000" with prio 10
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> candidate "con3000" with prio 5+5
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> 192.168.1.0/24|/0
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> proposing traffic selectors for other:
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> 192.168.4.10/32|/0
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> proposing traffic selectors for us:
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] <con3000|7> looking for a child config for 192.168.4.10/32|/0 === 192.168.1.0/24|/0
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[ENC] <con3000|7> parsed QUICK_MODE request 2929448535 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[NET] <con3000|7> received packet: from 85.120.10.230[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (300 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] vici client 2917 disconnected
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2917 requests: list-sas
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		13[CFG] vici client 2917 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 27 12:20:19 	charon 		08[CFG] vici client 2917 connected
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> nothing to initiate
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> activating new tasks
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[ENC] <con1000|4> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2912155618 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[NET] <con1000|4> received packet: from 95.86.130.77[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> nothing to initiate
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> activating new tasks
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[NET] <con1000|4> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 95.86.130.77[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[ENC] <con1000|4> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 437082278 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> activating new tasks
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 27 12:20:18 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|4> sending DPD request
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[IKE] <con2000|6> nothing to initiate
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[IKE] <con2000|6> activating new tasks
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[NET] <con2000|6> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 95.86.133.70[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[ENC] <con2000|6> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 882525495 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[IKE] <con2000|6> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[IKE] <con2000|6> activating new tasks
    Oct 27 12:20:16 	charon 		15[IKE] <con2000|6> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task 
    


  • 3. Today I created IKEv2 with another branch. First times it worked okay, when phase 2 rekey expires, it created automatically new phase 2 and deleted the old one. It worked okay until then, when phase 1 lifetime expired, it created new phase 1 and deleted old phase 1, but it recreated the same phase 2s, however phase 2s rekey hasn't expired. But in IKEv1 when phase 1 expires, it creates new phase 1, but doesn't create phase 2 which ones rekey has not expired.

    0_1540747905949_Screenshot from 2018-10-28 20-02-34.png

    I like pfSense, but this issues tires me. I am pasting the logs of ipsec with IKEv2 for your review.

    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		01[CFG] vici client 2899 disconnected
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2899 requests: list-sas
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		01[CFG] vici client 2899 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2899 connected
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> nothing to initiate
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[ENC] <con1000|1> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 470720582 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[NET] <con1000|1> received packet: from 95.86.130.77[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> nothing to initiate
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[NET] <con1000|1> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 95.86.130.77[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[ENC] <con1000|1> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 911759279 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 28 19:59:15 	charon 		12[IKE] <con1000|1> sending DPD request
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[NET] <con2000|181> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[4500] to 85.145.31.16[4500] (80 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[ENC] <con2000|181> generating INFORMATIONAL response 9 [ ]
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[ENC] <con2000|181> parsed INFORMATIONAL request 9 [ ]
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[NET] <con2000|181> received packet: from 85.145.31.16[4500] to 94.85.130.10[4500] (128 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2898 disconnected
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2898 requests: list-sas
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2898 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 28 19:59:10 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2898 connected
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> nothing to initiate
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[ENC] <con1000|1> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2011893979 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[NET] <con1000|1> received packet: from 95.86.130.77[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> nothing to initiate
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[NET] <con1000|1> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 95.86.130.77[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[ENC] <con1000|1> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 3186446868 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 28 19:59:05 	charon 		15[IKE] <con1000|1> sending DPD request
    Oct 28 19:59:04 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2897 disconnected
    Oct 28 19:59:04 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2897 requests: list-sas
    Oct 28 19:59:04 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2897 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 28 19:59:04 	charon 		07[CFG] vici client 2897 connected
    Oct 28 19:59:00 	charon 		06[NET] <con2000|181> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[4500] to 85.145.31.16[4500] (80 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:59:00 	charon 		06[ENC] <con2000|181> generating INFORMATIONAL response 8 [ ]
    Oct 28 19:59:00 	charon 		06[ENC] <con2000|181> parsed INFORMATIONAL request 8 [ ]
    Oct 28 19:59:00 	charon 		06[NET] <con2000|181> received packet: from 85.145.31.16[4500] to 94.85.130.10[4500] (96 bytes)
    Oct 28 19:58:59 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2896 disconnected
    Oct 28 19:58:59 	charon 		14[CFG] vici client 2896 requests: list-sas
    Oct 28 19:58:59 	charon 		14[CFG] vici client 2896 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 28 19:58:59 	charon 		07[CFG] vici client 2896 connected
    Oct 28 19:58:55 	charon 		06[IKE] <con1000|1> nothing to initiate
    Oct 28 19:58:55 	charon 		06[IKE] <con1000|1> activating new tasks
    Oct 28 19:58:55 	charon 		06[ENC] <con1000|1> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 288515128 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    

  • Netgate

    Does it impact traffic flow?



  • @emammadov said in IPSec issues:

    85.120.10.230

    Yes, there is. When phase 1 in IKEv2 expires, it creates new phase 1, but recreates phase 2s and duplicates them. I have two phase 2, when phase 1 expired and created again, it created only one phase 1.

    Oct 29 14:22:40 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2045 disconnected
    Oct 29 14:22:40 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2045 requests: list-sas
    Oct 29 14:22:40 	charon 		06[CFG] vici client 2045 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 29 14:22:40 	charon 		10[CFG] vici client 2045 connected
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[NET] <con3000|5> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[4500] to 85.120.10.230[4500] (80 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[ENC] <con3000|5> generating CREATE_CHILD_SA response 8 [ N(TS_UNACCEPT) ]
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|5> failed to establish CHILD_SA, keeping IKE_SA
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[IKE] <con3000|5> traffic selectors 192.168.4.10/32|/0 === 192.168.1.0/24|/0 inacceptable
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[CFG] <con3000|5> looking for a child config for 192.168.4.10/32|/0 === 192.168.1.0/24|/0
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[ENC] <con3000|5> parsed CREATE_CHILD_SA request 8 [ No KE SA TSi TSr ]
    Oct 29 14:22:39 	charon 		09[NET] <con3000|5> received packet: from 85.120.10.230[4500] to 94.85.130.10[4500] (496 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> nothing to initiate
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> activating new tasks
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[ENC] <con1000|3> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 870049060 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ]
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[NET] <con1000|3> received packet: from 95.86.130.77[500] to 94.85.130.10[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> nothing to initiate
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> activating new tasks
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[NET] <con1000|3> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[500] to 95.86.130.77[500] (92 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[ENC] <con1000|3> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2055258912 [ HASH N(DPD) ]
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> activating ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> activating new tasks
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> queueing ISAKMP_DPD task
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		09[IKE] <con1000|3> sending DPD request
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		10[NET] <con2000|2> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[4500] to 95.86.133.70[4500] (80 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		10[ENC] <con2000|2> generating INFORMATIONAL response 1430 [ ]
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		10[ENC] <con2000|2> parsed INFORMATIONAL request 1430 [ ]
    Oct 29 14:22:37 	charon 		10[NET] <con2000|2> received packet: from 95.86.133.70[4500] to 94.85.130.10[4500] (112 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:35 	charon 		10[CFG] vici client 2044 disconnected
    Oct 29 14:22:35 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2044 requests: list-sas
    Oct 29 14:22:35 	charon 		15[CFG] vici client 2044 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 29 14:22:35 	charon 		09[CFG] vici client 2044 connected
    Oct 29 14:22:34 	charon 		10[NET] <con3000|5> sending packet: from 94.85.130.10[4500] to 85.120.10.230[4500] (80 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:34 	charon 		10[ENC] <con3000|5> generating INFORMATIONAL response 7 [ ]
    Oct 29 14:22:34 	charon 		10[ENC] <con3000|5> parsed INFORMATIONAL request 7 [ ]
    Oct 29 14:22:34 	charon 		10[NET] <con3000|5> received packet: from 85.120.10.230[4500] to 94.85.130.10[4500] (128 bytes)
    Oct 29 14:22:30 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2043 disconnected
    Oct 29 14:22:30 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2043 requests: list-sas
    Oct 29 14:22:30 	charon 		12[CFG] vici client 2043 registered for: list-sa
    Oct 29 14:22:30 	charon 		10[CFG] vici client 2043 connected
    Oct 29 14:22:27 	charon 		01[IKE] <con1000|3> nothing to initiate
    Oct 29 14:22:27 	charon 		01[IKE] <con1000|3> activating new tasks
    Oct 29 14:22:27 	charon 		01[ENC] <con1000|3> parsed INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 4109594201 [ HASH N(DPD_ACK) ] 
    

    I switched from IKEv2 to IKEv1, but when ipsec connects there double the same phase 2.

    0_1540810668083_Untitled-1.jpg


  • Netgate

    But does it impact traffic flow across the VPN?



  • I ping remote server, it is going okay, sometimes it shows "Request timed out". As you can see it duplicates phase 2.

    0_1540978845059_Untitled-1.jpg

    0_1540977972974_Untitled-2.jpg


  • Netgate

    Those are harmless. They are rekeyed tunnels. They are not the cause of any traffic flow issues. They will disappear when their lifetimes expire. They are there in case the other side sends traffic to the rekeyed SAs so it can be decrypted.

    Running the shell command ipsec statusall will reveal them as rekeyed.

    If you have traffic problems over the VPN I would not spend any more time on that and focus on other reasons you might be seeing what you are seeing.



  • Thank you. The problem is, when phase 2 rekey expires it creates a new one, but it also duplicates phase 2. Then there are two same phase 2, they expire and create new same ones.I have 4 ipsec connections, one with Palo Alto, the rest with Mikrotik routers. Ipsec with Palo Alto and one of Mikrotik is working normal. Though the rest two Mikrotik have the same configurations as others, we see these issues.
    You think it is because of Mikrotik?
    What if I disable rekey? Then it will not work?
    Why there are 15 minutes difference between rekey and life?
    Is it okay if I add margin time for example 5 seconds, because of decreasing 15 minutes to 5 seconds?
    Why phase1 in IKEv2 expires, it removes all phase 2 and creates phase 2 again? This doesn't happen in IKEv1.


  • Netgate

    @emammadov said in IPSec issues:

    Thank you. The problem is, when phase 2 rekey expires it creates a new one, but it also duplicates phase 2. Then there are two same phase 2, they expire and create new same ones.I have 4 ipsec connections, one with Palo Alto, the rest with Mikrotik routers. Ipsec with Palo Alto and one of Mikrotik is working normal. Though the rest two Mikrotik have the same configurations as others, we see these issues.

    Right. That is normal.

    You think it is because of Mikrotik?

    No.

    What if I disable rekey? Then it will not work?

    No. I would not do that.

    Why there are 15 minutes difference between rekey and life?

    The rekey is set randomly a short interval before the lifetime. This is perfectly normal.

    Is it okay if I add margin time for example 5 seconds, because of decreasing 15 minutes to 5 seconds?

    I would leave it alone.

    Why phase1 in IKEv2 expires, it removes all phase 2 and creates phase 2 again? This doesn't happen in IKEv1.

    Because that's how it works. You can see if enabling Make-Before-Break in VPN > IPsec, Advanced helps but read the notes there and understand that will affect all IKEv2 tunnels.

    Keep in mind that the IPsec > Status screen can be delayed by several seconds.

    Again, those rekeyed SAs are probably NOT the source of any problems you are having as long as the new SA is established on rekey. You are probably chasing a ghost. 👻



  • Ok. I have another question. There is ipsec IKEv2 connection. Phase 1 and two phase 2. Phase 1 and two phase 2 is ip. It is also seems to be up in Status / IPSec. But in the dashboard, I mean the home page of pfsense, only one phase 2 tunnel seems to be up.


  • Netgate

    If you look at the actual phase 2 it is probably combined into one with both sets of addresses.



  • In IKEv1, each phase 2 seems separate. Why it is not so in Ikev2. Is it possible do it as Ikev1 in the next update? Because it makes user to get confused.


  • Netgate

    Because IKEv2 can combine them.

    If you do not like this behavior you can try enabling Split Connections on that tunnel.

    Some devices, notably the Cisco ASA, do not allow multiple traffic selectors on one SA so that option was added.



  • Thank you very much.



  • If I enable Make before Break in Advanced settings for IKEv2 in pfsense, then does the remote side should support this? pfSense is responder and Mikrotik is initiator in ipsec. I noticed that Make before Break option is available in Mikrotik settings. Will it create a problem in connection?


  • Netgate

    No idea what the Mikrotik will do but, yes, both sides need to support it. Set a maintenance window, try it, and see.