Last active
April 25, 2022 19:19
-
-
Save skids/0aab3537ed96bd48eb24b9dc452a6b37 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
TS_UNACCEPT on modern CENTOS
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SOLVED: there was an old type=transport statement leftover on the initiator, Thermi++ | |
Strongswan rw to strongswan responder | |
I *think* this problem is on the responder side. I've tried all sorts of | |
little alterations and tweaks and still get a TS_UNACCEPT which appear in | |
the logs to be due to no selectors for the remote being present in the | |
configuration at the point when selectors are narrowed. | |
15[IKE] assigning virtual IP XXX.XXX.247.193 to peer '[email protected]' | |
15[CFG] looking for a child config for 0.0.0.0/0 === 0.0.0.0/0 | |
15[CFG] proposing traffic selectors for us: | |
15[CFG] XXX.XXX.1.0/24 | |
15[CFG] proposing traffic selectors for other: | |
15[CFG] XXX.XXX.247.193/32 | |
15[CFG] candidate "ipv4" with prio 1+1 | |
15[CFG] found matching child config "ipv4" with prio 2 | |
15[CFG] selecting proposal: | |
15[CFG] proposal matches | |
15[CFG] received proposals: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/EXT_SEQ | |
15[CFG] configured proposals: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/MODP_4096/EXT_SEQ | |
15[CFG] selected proposal: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/EXT_SEQ | |
15[KNL] sending [snip] | |
15[KNL] received [snip] | |
15[KNL] got SPI c37eea2c | |
15[CFG] selecting traffic selectors for us: | |
15[CFG] config: XXX.XXX.1.0/24, received: 0.0.0.0/0 => match: XXX.XXX.1.0/24 | |
15[CFG] selecting traffic selectors for other: | |
15[IKE] no acceptable traffic selectors found | |
15[IKE] failed to establish CHILD_SA, keeping IKE_SA | |
...and I take the nonpresence of any config: line after | |
"selecting traffic selectors for other:" | |
to mean the config considers itself to be empty, despite having | |
made a proposal with the vip -- though maybe it means no TSi was | |
received. [ENC] debugs prove to not be useful for figuring that out. | |
responder is 5.4.0-2.el7 on CENTOS 7.2 | |
config is swanctl-based: | |
swan { | |
version = 2 | |
local_addrs = XXX.XXX.255.64 | |
local_port = 500 | |
remote_port = 500 | |
proposals = aes256-sha256-prfsha256-modp4096 | |
aggressive = no | |
pull = yes | |
encap = no | |
mobike = no | |
fragmentation = yes | |
send_certreq = no | |
send_cert = always | |
keyingtries = 3 | |
pools = its | |
local { | |
id = vpn-strongswan.YYY.YYY | |
auth = pubkey | |
certs = entrust_root.crt,entrust_i1.crt,entrust_i2.crt,vpn.YYY.YYY.crt | |
} | |
remote { | |
id = %any | |
auth = eap-radius | |
} | |
unique = no | |
reauth_time = 24h | |
rekey_time = 4h | |
children { | |
ipv4 { | |
esp_proposals = aes256-sha256-modp4096-esn | |
local_ts = XXX.XXX.1.0/24 | |
rekey_time = 1h | |
mode = tunnel | |
policies = yes | |
dpd_action = clear | |
ipcomp = no | |
inactivity = 12h | |
tfc_padding = 512 | |
replay_window = 32 | |
}}} | |
pools { its { | |
addrs = XXX.XXX.247.192/26 | |
} | |
} | |
initiator config (ipsec.conf style) | |
conn testvpn | |
keyexchange=ikev2 | |
# left=%any | |
[email protected] | |
leftauth=eap-mschapv2 | |
# leftauth=psk | |
leftsourceip=%config4 | |
leftsubnet=%dynamic | |
esp=aes256-sha256-modp4096-esn! | |
ike=aes256-sha256-prfsha256-modp4096! | |
rekey=yes | |
keyingtries=3 | |
keylife=1200s | |
rekeymargin=9m | |
rekeyfuzz=20% | |
type=transport | |
right=vpn-strongswan.XXXX.XXX | |
rightid=vpn-strongswan.XXXX.XXX | |
rightsendcert=never | |
rightauth=pubkey | |
rightsubnet=0.0.0.0/0 | |
# rightsubnet=XXX.XXX.0.0/16,10.0.0.0/8 | |
auto=add | |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
it's helpful for me , thanks!