71af56faa30" #2: STATE_QUICK_I1:
retransmission; will wait 2 seconds for response
010 "ec9a3d05-1842-403a-84b5-371af56faa30" #2: STATE_QUICK_I1:
retransmission; will wait 4 seconds for response
010 "ec9a3d05-1842-403a-84b5-371af56faa30" #2: STATE_QUICK_I1:
retransmission; will
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 05:47:39PM -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> I should also have prefaced my comments that I could be completely wrong
> about firewalld not querying iptables. I don't know. I don't do a lot of
> mucking about with firewalld. I'm an old hack and generally do my own
> iptables stuf
etting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
>>>
>>> On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>>>> I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
>>>> Carolina to my son's LAN (192.168.1.h) in Maryland. We each have a
&
> On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>>> I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
>>> Carolina to my son's LAN (192.168.1.h) in Maryland. We each have a
>>> primary machine that manages the ipsec tunnel and several secondary
>&g
On 09/24/17 16:44, Cameron Simpson wrote:
David,
Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a
primer on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h
Allegedly, on or about 11 August 2017, David A. De Graaf sent:
> Why is ping more clever in finding the route?
It's a much more basic part of networking.
When you try to connect to a service (mail, HTTP, FTP, telnet, SSH,
etc), it has to be there and running, and have nothing in the way (such
as
On 09/24/2017 01:44 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> David,
>
> Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a
> primer on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
>
> On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>> I use
David,
Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a primer
on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
Carolina to my son's LAN (
On 08/11/2017 01:32 PM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
(The other common suspect, selinux, is disabled.)
That's terrible. Stop turning off SELinux. You don't "find / -exec
chmod 777 {} +" do you?
On the remote gateway. octopus, 'ipsec -L' output was dominated by
DROP lines from 'fail2ban', but
On 08/11/17 14:28, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 08/11/2017 11:12 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
What's the problem here? Why is ping more clever in finding the
route?
One problem you might have is that your ipsec gateway may have
firewall rules that allow ICMP but not other traffic to be forward
On 08/11/2017 11:12 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
What's the problem here? Why is ping more clever in finding the
route?
One problem you might have is that your ipsec gateway may have firewall
rules that allow ICMP but not other traffic to be forwarded. Can you
post the full set of firewal
I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
Carolina to my son's LAN (192.168.1.h) in Maryland. We each have a
primary machine that manages the ipsec tunnel and several secondary
machines. Static routing tables direct traffic for the remote LAN to
the local primary ma
>
> Here is the log in the source computer :
First thing to do is make sure your packets are getting through to the
destination computer. What do the logs there show? If you run tcpdump on
the destination computer, can you see the packets coming from the source
computer?
Before diving into the
Hi,
I succeed to pass phase1 but not phase2.
* Any idea ?
* Can a Linux-based IPSEC tunnel can really contact a NETASQ router ?
Here is my logs :
Dec 16 19:28:43 Fedora-64-2 racoon: INFO: IPsec-SA request for
8x.xxx.xx.xx queued due to no phase1 found.
Dec 16 19:28:43 Fedora-64-2
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 18:46 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>
> Here is the log in the source computer :
First thing to do is make sure your packets are getting through to the
destination computer. What do the logs there show? If you run tcpdump on
the destination computer, can you see the packets com
Hi all,
I try to setup an IPSEC tunnel between two F14 boxes. I use PSK as
authentication.
Here is the log in the source computer :
Dec 14 18:41:50 Fedora-64-2 racoon: INFO: IPsec-SA request for
8x.2xx.1x.1xx queued due to no phase1 found.
Dec 14 18:41:50 Fedora-64-2 racoon: INFO: initiate
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:09:10 +0100
Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> one more time...
>
> I have to setup a VPN IPSEC tunnel between a linux machine and a
> physical router. The security mode of the router is 'IKE using
> pre-shared key'
>
> I cannot
Hi,
one more time...
I have to setup a VPN IPSEC tunnel between a linux machine and a
physical router. The security mode of the router is 'IKE using
pre-shared key'
I cannot use openVPN because the router isn't compliant with.
I want so use openSwan to setup the IPSEC tunn
etc.
> Hw
kevin
--
> - Oorspronkelijk bericht -
> Van: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Aan:
> users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Verzonden: Sat Dec 04 21:41:35 2010 Onderwerp: Re: VPN/IPSEC tunnel
>
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:32:04 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
simple hapsnap tunnels one might even consider the tunnel
capabilities of openssh.
Hw
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Aan: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Verzonden: Sat Dec 04 21:41:35 2010
Onderwerp: Re: VPN/IPSEC tunnel
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010
On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 13:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:32:04 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 18:57 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> > > Is openVPN can make IPSec tunnels or just SSL ?
> >
> > I believe it's fully IPSec compliant.
>
> Nope. Open
On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 13:10 -0500, Elliott Chapin wrote:
> On 12/04/2010 11:14 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 21:49 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have to setup a VPN/IPSEC tunnel from A fedora box to a router (N
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:32:04 -0430
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 18:57 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> > Is openVPN can make IPSec tunnels or just SSL ?
>
> I believe it's fully IPSec compliant.
Nope. Openvpn uses it's own ssl based protocol. It cannot directly
interoperate wi
On 12/04/2010 11:14 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 21:49 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have to setup a VPN/IPSEC tunnel from A fedora box to a router (NETASQ)
>>
>> Has anyone succeed to do this ? Is it possible ?
On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 18:57 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> Is openVPN can make IPSec tunnels or just SSL ?
I believe it's fully IPSec compliant.
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 12/04/2010 11:14 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 21:49 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have to setup a VPN/IPSEC tunnel from A fedora box to a router (NETASQ)
>>
>> Has anyone succeed to do this ? Is it possible ?
Is openVPN can make IPSec tunnels or just SSL ?
Le 04/12/10 17:14, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 21:49 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have to setup a VPN/IPSEC tunnel from A fedora box to a router (NETASQ)
>>
>> Has anyo
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 21:49 +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to setup a VPN/IPSEC tunnel from A fedora box to a router (NETASQ)
>
> Has anyone succeed to do this ? Is it possible ?
> Is OpenSwan the best way to do this ?
AFAIK OpenSWAN is now moribund, but OpenVPN (
Hi,
I have to setup a VPN/IPSEC tunnel from A fedora box to a router (NETASQ)
Has anyone succeed to do this ? Is it possible ?
Is OpenSwan the best way to do this ?
Thanks for any answer
BR
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options
29 matches
Mail list logo
