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

    Traffic Selector unacceptable.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPsec
    14 Posts 3 Posters 8.7k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • M
      mirtiza
      last edited by

      I am trying to establish IPSec VPN tunnel using IKE v2
      after authentication i get this message on pfSense.
      Feb 13 17:19:35 charon 13[IKE] <con1|40> traffic selectors 172.19.7.0/24|/0 === 192.168.1.0/24|/0 inacceptable
      Feb 13 17:19:35 charon 13[IKE] <con1|40> failed to establish CHILD_SA, keeping IKE_SA
      I am looking for some help.

      K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        Konstanti @mirtiza
        last edited by

        @mirtiza

        Check the phase 2 traffic selectors settings on both sides of the tunnel
        or show the phase 2 settings here (on both sides)

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

          0_1550066532328_be512aaa-e1d4-48d0-be19-0424176d98df-image.png
          0_1550066660629_b810f60a-38b0-4864-aa8b-4ffad2bffc03-image.png
          0_1550066697290_bcc3a749-e1ad-4ed5-9a2c-b1fc7e5e26ab-image.png

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

            @Konstanti for refrence i am attaching exact logs.
            Feb 13 17:32:43 charon 05[IKE] <119> 103.7.77.89 is initiating an IKE_SA
            Feb 13 17:32:43 charon 05[IKE] <119> remote host is behind NAT
            Feb 13 17:32:43 charon 05[ENC] <119> generating IKE_SA_INIT response 0 [ SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) N(MULT_AUTH) ]
            Feb 13 17:32:43 charon 05[NET] <119> sending packet: from 203.xxx.xx.134[500] to 103.7.77.89[5826] (276 bytes)
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <con1|109> retransmit 5 of request with message ID 0
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[NET] <con1|109> sending packet: from 203.xxx.xx.134[4500] to 103.7.77.89[5870] (60 bytes)
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[NET] <119> received packet: from 103.7.77.89[5870] to 203.130.23.134[4500] (212 bytes)
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[ENC] <119> parsed IKE_AUTH request 1 [ IDi CERTREQ AUTH SA TSi TSr ]
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <119> received 1 cert requests for an unknown ca
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[CFG] <119> looking for peer configs matching 203.130.23.134[%any]...103.7.77.89[Transport]
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[CFG] <con1|119> selected peer config 'con1'
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <con1|119> authentication of 'Transport' with pre-shared key successful
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <con1|119> authentication of 'pfSense' (myself) with pre-shared key
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <con1|119> IKE_SA con1[119] established between 203.130.23.134[pfSense]...103.7.77.89[Transport]
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <con1|119> traffic selectors 172.19.7.0/24|/0 === 192.168.1.0/24|/0 inacceptable
            Feb 13 17:32:44 charon 05[IKE] <con1|119> failed to establish CHILD_SA, keeping IKE_SA

            K 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • K
              Konstanti @mirtiza
              last edited by

              This post is deleted!
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                Konstanti @mirtiza
                last edited by Konstanti

                @mirtiza
                You have incorrectly configured tunnel parameters on the PFSense side
                You set up a tunnel for the Road warriors(Mobile Ipsec), and you need to configure the site-to-site

                https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/book/ipsec/site-to-site.html

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

                  Yeah i dont have static IP on both sides.
                  Site A has static IP and Site IP has dynamic WAN IP, as per my understanding site to site configuration is in case when both sides have static IP.
                  Please correct me if i am wrong.

                  K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • K
                    Konstanti @mirtiza
                    last edited by

                    @mirtiza

                    Openvpn - your solution

                    IPSec tunnel needs static ip addresses on both sides

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

                      0_1550069648202_Network.png
                      This is the network i want to establish.

                      K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • K
                        Konstanti @mirtiza
                        last edited by

                        @mirtiza
                        openvpn

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

                          Okay but there is a guide for Digi Transport Cellular routers to do this.
                          0_1550069849457_e83c7de3-d1fb-4fe1-bda0-62c9cca4aa21-image.png
                          They say its possible, i dont know if you can have a look.I am sharing the pdf as well.
                          http://ftp1.digi.com/support/documentation/AN_027_Configure_an_IPSEC_VPN.pdf

                          Than you.

                          K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • K
                            Konstanti @mirtiza
                            last edited by Konstanti

                            @mirtiza Theoretically, this is possible to configure using PFSens strongswan) . I need to think

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

                              @Konstanti thank you so much for time. Please take your time i will be waiting for you. As per my understanding Road Warrior style VPN is for clients with dynamic IP which matches my case.

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

                                No. You need to use a site-to-site to route tunnel networks like you are trying to do. Mobile IPsec assigns one and only one address to a connecting client. It doesn't "route" subnets like a site-to-site tunnel.

                                You need to work around dynamic IP addresses with something like dynamic DNS for each endpoint.

                                Nothing you come up with there will be perfect. Especially if the addresses simply change abruptly.

                                Set each side to update a Dynamic DNS entry pointing to their actual, routable, outside WAN address.

                                Tell each side to connect to the FQDN of the DynDNS entry on the other side.

                                Set each side to use their own FQDN as the IKE identifier locally, and the other side's FQDN as the remote identifier.

                                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.