|
||||||||
OK I have no idea what is wrong here, I have done this in the past, but for some reason this is just not working. I have 2 monowalls I have verified that the information all seems to be correct for the VPNS to link up. But I never seem to get past phase 2 On the one side I get this. Dec 14 12:28:10 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:1368:isakmp_open(): 127.0.0.1[500] used as isakmp port (fd=7) Dec 14 12:28:10 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:1368:isakmp_open(): 63.147.251.220[500] used as isakmp port (fd=8) Dec 14 12:28:10 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:1368:isakmp_open(): 192.168.3.209[500] used as isakmp port (fd=9) Dec 14 12:28:11 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:1694:isakmp_post_acquire(): IPsec-SA request for 65.218.1.253 queued due to no phase1 found. Dec 14 12:28:11 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:808:isakmp_ph1begin_i(): initiate new phase 1 negotiation: 63.147.251.220[500]<=>65.218.1.253[500] Dec 14 12:28:11 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:813:isakmp_ph1begin_i(): begin Identity Protection mode. Dec 14 12:28:11 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: vendorid.c:128:check_vendorid(): received Vendor ID: KAME/racoon Dec 14 12:28:11 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: vendorid.c:128:check_vendorid(): received Vendor ID: KAME/racoon Dec 14 12:28:11 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:2459:log_ph1established(): ISAKMP-SA established 63.147.251.220[500]-65.218.1.253[500] spi:63b85c6b1fda0fce:d46f361e38aafdf0 Dec 14 12:28:12 63.147.251.220 racoon: INFO: isakmp.c:952:isakmp_ph2begin_i(): initiate new phase 2 negotiation: 63.147.251.220[0]<=>65.218.1.253[0] On the other side I get Dec 14 11:19:29 racoon: ERROR: isakmp.c:1063:isakmp_ph2begin_r(): failed to pre-process packet. Dec 14 11:19:29 racoon: ERROR: isakmp_quick.c:1046:quick_r1recv(): failed to get sainfo. Dec 14 11:19:29 racoon: ERROR: isakmp_quick.c:1812:get_sainfo_r(): failed to get sainfo. Any Ideas?? Mark Spieth - Director of Internet Services Northeast Ohio Digital Inc. http://www.neod.net mspieth at neod dot net 330-830-6551 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials attached hereto are confidential and the property of the sender. The information contained in the attached materials is privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the above-named individual(s) or entity(ies). If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the attached information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please discard the information immediately -----Original Message----- From: alex wetmore [mailto:alex at phred dot org] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:04 AM To: Bryan Catlin Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] to Wrap or to Soekris that is my question? On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Bryan Catlin wrote: > We are expanding and wanting a smaller unit, instead of our normal regular > pcs, for in the field installs. Most will be in semi weather proof areas > like outdoor enclosures or at least protected from the elements but not > necessarily heat and cold. > > So what I want to know is, is the Wrap or Soekris board more > flexible/reliable to use? We may need the 3rd LAN port and have a thru put > of about 10Mb and 45Mb in the future. Each company makes a variety of products. I also don't know how price sensitive you are. I am price sensitive (home user) which lead me to purchase a WRAP. Specifically I got the WRAP 1C-2 (3 LAN port model). This worked great for months, and then I ran into some stability problems. Pascal (from PCEngines) sent me a replacement WRAP 1D-2 which solved the problems. The company was very easy to work with. I don't think that hardware failures for the WRAP boards have been common, I only have read about one other incident. There isn't a completely comparable product from Soekris. The WRAP boards have a faster processor than all Soekris boards except for the 4801 and 4826. The Soekris 4801 boards have some additional features over the WRAP 1D-2 such as a IDE port and USB 1.1 ports. Neither of these are necessary for m0n0wall, so I ignored them. The PCEngines stuff is much cheaper than Soekris. The Soekris 4801 is $222 vs $147 for a WRAP 1D-2. The cheapest Soekris is about the same price as the WRAP 1D-2 but uses a CPU with about half of the speed. This is probably fine for m0n0wall today, but I preferred to have the extra headroom. I don't think that you can really go wrong with products from either company, it is just a matter of comparing features to cost for your specific application. alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch |