Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) » History » Version 5
Martin Willi, 19.03.2009 14:20
1 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
---|---|---|---|
2 | 5 | Martin Willi | h1. Frequently Asked Questions |
3 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
4 | 5 | Martin Willi | |
5 | 5 | Martin Willi | *Q:* _I'm trying to set up a VPN tunnel with a [[ZyXELL]]/Linksys/X router but the other side keeps on telling me "no proposal chosen" when strongSwan initiates the connection._ |
6 | 5 | Martin Willi | |
7 | 5 | Martin Willi | *A:* Make sure that the peer supports all the algorithms (including the key lengths) which strongSwan proposes for IKE and ESP. In terms of IKE, the proposal consists of the following parts: Encryption algorithm, hash algorithm (PRF) and DH group. In terms of ESP the proposal includes the following: Encryption algorithm, hash algorithm, pfs group (DH group) and *compression algorithm*. There are lots of IPSec implementations out there that do *not* support compression or have implemented it erronously. So the first thing to try in this situation is to switch compression off on the peer. strongSwan's default setting is |
8 | 5 | Martin Willi | <pre> |
9 | 1 | Martin Willi | compress=no |
10 | 5 | Martin Willi | </pre> |
11 | 5 | Martin Willi | See also Chapter "14.1 Authentication and encryption algorithms":http://www.strongswan.org/docs/readme4.htm#section_14.1 of the strongSwan documentation. It has good information about the relevant parameters. |
12 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
13 | 5 | Martin Willi | *Q:* _I'm getting the error message "no RSA public key known for '....' ". What am I doing wrong? _ |
14 | 3 | Martin Willi | |
15 | 5 | Martin Willi | <pre> |
16 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
17 | 5 | Martin Willi | *Q:* _I want to set up strongSwan to interoperate with Microsoft Windows using L2TP/IPsec. I'm getting the error message "NAT-Traversal: Transport mode disabled due to security concerns" which results in strongSwan sending an encrypted notification BAD_PROPOSAL_SYNTAX_ |
18 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
19 | 5 | Martin Willi | *A:* Here is a quote from strongSwan lead developer Andres Steffen on how to deal with this problem: |
20 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
21 | 1 | Martin Willi | NAT-Traversal with IPsec transport mode has some inherent security risks. |
22 | 3 | Martin Willi | Since Microsoft doesn't care about this please compile strongSwan with the option |
23 | 5 | Martin Willi | <pre> |
24 | 3 | Martin Willi | ./configure --enable-nat-transport |
25 | 5 | Martin Willi | </pre> |
26 | 3 | Martin Willi | end of quote |
27 | 3 | Martin Willi | |
28 | 5 | Martin Willi | *Q:* _Does strongSwan support IKEv1 Aggressive Mode?_ |
29 | 4 | Martin Willi | |
30 | 5 | Martin Willi | *A:* Quote from Andreas Steffen: "No, strongSwan does *not* support IKEv1 Aggressive Mode and *never* will. Otherwise we would have called the project "weakSwan". " |
31 | 4 | Martin Willi | |
32 | 5 | Martin Willi | *Q:* _strongSwan fails to initiate a connection to a peer. I'm using RSA authentication and I noticed the two error messages: |
33 | 5 | Martin Willi | <pre> |
34 | 4 | Martin Willi | discarding duplicate packet; already STATE_MAIN_I3 |
35 | 5 | Martin Willi | </pre> |
36 | 4 | Martin Willi | on the initiator side and |
37 | 5 | Martin Willi | <pre> |
38 | 4 | Martin Willi | max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_R2 |
39 | 5 | Martin Willi | </pre> |
40 | 5 | Martin Willi | on the responder side._ |
41 | 1 | Martin Willi | |
42 | 5 | Martin Willi | *A:* This problem might be related to the Path MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit). The IKE protocol is transported in UDP datagrams. As result the UDP datagrams also contain the X.509 certificate you are using. Now, if you're using a large certificate the UDP datagram might get bigger than the PMTU. That's the point where IP fragmentation kicks in and cuts your IP packet / UDP datagram in two or more pieces. There are some firewalls out there that strictly block IP fragments and therefore hamper your IKE connection. Large X.509 certificates could result from long Distinguished names or from long RSA keys (2048 bit). As a workaround you can reconfigure your firewall, try to make your certificates smaller or preload the certificates on both sides and thereby get away without transmitting the certificates over UDP. |