GETVPN and nbar

Similar Questions

• GETVPN and regeneration of the keys when several members of the Group leave at the same time

  He did not specify how the key servers respond when several members of the group start simultaneously. For example, if 3 members leave the same group, made the key manager sends three keys (KEK, TEK) and only the last will be available for future connections? Or the key manager optimizes the regeneration of the keys and sends only a single key?

  Thank you

  Stone,

  On himself, he is not uncertain. You can retrieve the session memory keys (not impossible but difficult).

  I guess what you are looking for is a red button to clear the SAs on all devices?

  In this case:

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/docs/iOS-XML/iOS/sec_conn_getvpn/configuration/15-2mt/sec-get-VPN.html#GUID-6267F36C-094F-483F-A1CA-735D39484364

  Specifically "clear members ks gdoi crypto now."

  There is a particular risk that you thought?

  M.

• DMVPN or GETVPN

  Team - we have a client that runs GET VPN over MPLS link to DC to rays.  They are heading for a refresh of the network.    We thought in suggesting IWAN to them.  DMVPN is one of the 4 pillars of IWAN.  Can ask the customer to go to DMVPN instead of GetVPN.  Or should we do it any other way.  Against, please highlight.

  Thank you

  bijbalaktn,

  When you say 'updating of the network', which implies? We will always use MPLS as our transportation network?

  GETVPN or DMVPN is a solution in an MPLS network. Two benefits of GETVPN include a little less overhead of encapsulation (as it is just the ESP without GRE encapsulation) and the lack of accountability for an overlay routing protocol. That said, when comparing DMVPN and GETVPN, most of the people are much more comfortable with DMVPN which is an advantage in and of itself. In addition, if you are considering a solution IWAN DMVPN is a requirement by the CVD IWAN.

  In short, a solution should work and it's really up to you; personally, I'm a big fan of both. If you are uncomfortable with GETVPN and it worked for you, it may be better to stay with that. However, DMVPN is expected to function properly for you as well.

  HTH,

  Frank

• GetVPN KS and GM on the same box

  I'm trying to set up a network with GetVPN instead of standard IPSec tunnels and tried to get the KS and GM to be on the same box, is it possible? If so does anyone have an example of a config.

  Thank you

  Andrew

  Hello Andrew,.

  It is my understanding that KS and GM on the router are not supported.

  Kind regards

  Arul

  * Pls note all useful messages *.

• NBAR, logging and the CEF

  Let's say I'm using NBAR the color of incoming traffic and drop the traffic on an interface of output... using an ACL. If I turn on logging on the access list applied to the interface of the OB, which prevents NBAR work? I ask because NBAR requires CEF; CEF is invalid with logging.

  How about using PBR to drop on the incoming interface and logging traffic on * that * access-list?

  TIA

  Interesting question...

  I just tried the following scenarios:

  Scenario 1)

  -' ip nbar Protocol-Discovery' on fa0/0

  -' ip access-group in test' on fa0/0

  -"license ip any any newspaper" in the test-ACL

  I then tried pings and send the telnet to the router on the fa0/0 IP, and all appeared in the Discovery Protocol as usual.

  Scenario 2)

  -' match telnet Protocol' and 'match icmp Protocol' in two different classes in a policy-map (test) -

  -' service-policy-map input test' on fa0/0

  -A ACL even entering scenario 1

  Did the same tests and the policy plan was functioning normally.

  Scenario 3)

  The same as in scenario 2, but I ran the test-traffic to a loopback from the router instead of this interface.

  The same tests run, and everything seemed OK.

  I have not tried route actually something through the router with this, but it seems like adding instructions-journal of CEA does not affect NBAR as you asked.

  Exactly what the technical relationship between NBAR and CEF and things to do and not to do is yet to be decided...

  Did she help?

• GETVPN in CsC MPLS

  Hello

  I'm implementing a getvpn on a router that is connected to an interface to a mpls backbone. He made the LDP with the router of the provider and BGP with my other sites in the MPLS cloud.

  I have another interface secondary interfaces that map to VRF. This interface is connected to a L3 switch which has VRF configuration as well.

  In this configuration when I ping from the closure of swich for the closure of the router in the VRF everything works.

  After activating the card encryption on the interface sub pointing to the switch of the ping command fails, and I receive the following message

  % CRYPTO-4-RECVD_PKT_NOT_IPSEC: Rec'd package not an IPSEC packet. (ip) vrf/adr_dest is CUST2/10.10.81.252, src_addr is 10.10.81.5, prot = 1

  When I place the card encryption on the interface to the router of suppliers it does also not because there is no configured vrf.

  Now, the $1,000,000 question, it is a supported configuration and where can I I have to place the card encryption in order to make this installation work.

  Thanks in advance

  Alex

  Alex,

  GetVPN is a device intended to routers right PEs, unless something has changed (I'm mostly off the safe space for a year) you will have a hard time overcoming the limitations.

  There was a great project to have cryptographic cards working as a feature of infiltration, which most likely would have worked well enough here, but I think that with the advent of logical interfaces it was put away. But anyway, we are interested in the things that work.

  You can check on on the side of MS in this forum if they have a solution for the encryption of PE - PE or 'encryption as a service'... we talk a bit on the interwebz, but I have not seen anything significant out.

  M.

• DMVPN/GETVPN double spoke router Design

  All the:

  I'm developing a new design of VPN - cloud DMVPN, routers double hub to the main site, router hub unique to the backup site and double routers spoke at the Directorate General/remotes.

  This is all via internet transport, with overlay GETVPN to encrypt.

  Somebody has experiences establishing DMVPN designs with dual spoke routers, and how go you about it? HSRP @ interface outside or inside, determination of Protocol routing only, etc...

  Thanks in advance!

  Hi Steve,.

  Using BGP will complicate things a bit.

  This is because you must announce the IP (used as source GRE) HSRP on both your ISP. If you need to own that IP.

  If this is not possible, you can use the double Hub - double DMVPN Layout (a part of the link DMVPN I joined precedent).

  This will require a WILL by the router and routing to use routing protocol.

  HSRP can still be used on the inside of the interface, the GRE tunnel status tracking.

  Doesnít of traffic must be translated as possible via GRE tunnels.

  Please rate if this helped.

  Kind regards

  Daniel

• DMVPN getvpn or DVTI

  Hello

  in fact I situation as mentioned further and I am confused about design and implement what VPN topology, I choose DMVPN, GETVPN or DVTI

  I have 4 branch and 1 main site, branches have 2 connectivity to HQ a via INTERNET one another through MPLS, so I want to have Fail-over on the links and also secure two-way tunnel

  Best regards

  John Mayer

  GETVPN is not supposed to be used on the internet. If this isn't the solution.

  With this small amount of sites I set up static VTI on MPLS and use DVTIs on the internet if the branches have dynamic IPs. If the branches also have the static IP, I re also these links with the stuffy VTI.

  DMVPN could also be used in this scenario, but the protocol overhead is not necessary in this small scale scenario.

• GETVPN

  Make a few tests before direct implementation, have a small network of laboratory of GETVPN, unique KS, 5 GMs to 12.4 (15) T10.  All encryption, routing, etc. works very well except something odd I noticed.

  Of key server;

  C2851_Key_Srvr #sh gd ks cry me

  Member of group information:

  Number of new generated key sent to group GETVPN: 170

  Group Member ID: 172.16.1.1

  Group ID: 1234

  Group name: GETVPN

  Key server ID: 172.16.0.1

  New generated keys sent: 170

  Redials attempts: 0

  Recomposition of receipts Rcvd: 170

  Generate a new key missed Acks: 0

  Envoy seq num: 2 1 0 0

  RCVD seq num: 2 1 0 0

  ......

  ......

  Member of the Group:

  * 09:34:43.574 May 17: % GDOI-5-GM_RECV_REKEY: receipt given to the key for the Group PGroupfrom 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.4.1 with seq # 1

  * 09:55:33.701 May 17: % GDOI-5-GM_RECV_REKEY: receipt given to the key for the Group PGroupfrom 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.4.1 with seq # 2

  * 11:20:39.221 May 17: % GDOI-5-GM_RECV_REKEY: receipt given to the key for the Group PGroupfrom 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.4.1 with seq # 1

  * 11:55:34.433 May 17: % GDOI-5-GM_RECV_REKEY: receipt given to the key for the Group PGroupfrom 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.4.1 with seq # 2

  * 13:06:34.865 May 17: % GDOI-5-GM_RECV_REKEY: receipt given to the key for the Group PGroupfrom 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.4.1 with seq # 1

  * 13:55:35.164 may 17: % GDOI-5-GM_RECV_REKEY: receipt given to the key for the Group PGroupfrom 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.4.1 with seq # 2

  ... the sent sequence numbers & rcvd will never more than 2.  In fact, they repeat the model: 1,2,1,2,1, 2... forever.

  It is a behavior as the Guide design and implementation &, section: 5.3.3.2 says:

  .......

  .......

  If all the GMs in the response of the Group GET VPN do on a generation of new unicast key, generate a new key syslog messages are displayed with incrementing sequence numbers consecutive.<>

  .......

  .......

  If syslog does not display numbers in sequence to generate a new key increment properly (last sequence number + 1), which indicates that the primary KS sends certain retransmissions to generate a new key because receipts of some GMs is not received.

  This implies, seq #s should increase 1,2,3,4,5...

  Anyone shed some light on this issue? Is this a real problem or not?

  much appreciated!

  DJS

  In the "sh gd ks me cry ' output you sent, it seems that the KS 170 generate a new key messages sent and received all generate a new 170 key ACKS. On this basis, nothing seems wrong. You might see the repetition because a generation of new KEK resets the sequence number 1. A generation of new KEK is when a new KEK is generated and TEKS of new possible according to their life expectancy. All consecutive TEK new generated key increment from there. Examine your lives to KEK and TEK, but based on the syslog horodateurs Im guessing this is probably the explanation.

  Just to be on the safe side, I'll keep an eye on your GMs in your test environment and monitor to see one or more trying to re - save when IPSec security associations are on expire (about 60 seconds) because this would indicate a problem with the front desk is not the new generated key.

• L3VPN and IPsec

  I have to ask if someone have the full documentation on how to do L3VPN and use IPsec to encrypt traffic between the terminal nodes L3VPN.

  Thank you.

  Petar

  Petar,

  For THIS what we usually recommend GETVPN, IPsec with GDOI for control plan. He is crypt not the IP header, but it retains the original header.

  Empty:

  http://www.Cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/security/group-encr...

  Slide 9.

  M.

  M.

• GETVPN Questions

  I'm trying to implement GETVPN to encrypt all sensitive data on telco provider network. Just

  to give you a bit of history, we have about 500 1921 located routers remote agencies.   We also have a Headend device

  Here, who will act as the key for all server GM in remote branches.   The router on the central/headquarters site will obviously be something much more to function as the key server.

  Some remote organizations use an IP subnet, we ascribe to our network and others use their own subnet so they can interact with their local

  Thus the network.    For those who use their own private plan, we do a static NAT or a PAT in the remote router in order to allow their

  desktop access to appropriate applications.     We were told that GETVPN wouldn't work if we were PAT'ing addresses.   Is this a real

  Statement?   I'm a bit confused by this statement, as the order of operations happens AFTER NAT on the outbound and BEFORE NAT on

  incoming traffic.

  So I guess that basically I'm just a NAT/PAT question make a difference?  If it works now without GETVPN, should not work with?

  If anyone could enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

  In addition, since we have about 500 remote users, how GETVPN works during the implementation?   So let's say, we apply the config at Headquarters

  side and one of the remotes, this causes ALL other remotes to go down because they have not been implemented yet or we can slowly config each remote router over time?

  Thanks in advance,

  WARNING: It's around year old knowledge, don't hesitate to do consult me.

  You're right about the count on NAT and GETVPN on the same device. It will work (with obvious diligence).

  What does not work, it's a getvpn device is behind a NATing device.

  For your second question, have a look at the GETVPN DIG

  http://www.Cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/security/group-encrypted-transport-VPN/GETVPN_DIG_version_1_0_External.PDF

  Particualrly, ITS passive and ITS reception are something that might be interesting.

  FYI, the configuration guide.

  http://www.Cisco.com/c/en/us/TD/docs/iOS-XML/iOS/sec_conn_getvpn/configuration/15-Mt/sec-get-VPN-15-Mt-book/sec-get-VPN.html

• DMVPN and 861 routers

  We have a few customers that tunnel using DMPVN with 831 & 851 routers. Recently, a new order was placed to add a user to an existing tunnel. As 851 routers are no longer available, we went with the model 861 and found that it doesn't have the PNDH in IOS.  So how do this work now, and why PNDH is no longer in the last IOS? Seems stupid to not have when used by older models of routers which replaces the 861.

  Hello

  You are right, the 861 series routers do not support DMVPN (and I tend to agree with you that maybe it's not the smartest marketing decision). For advanced security feature support, such as DMVPN and GETVPN, you must use the routers of the 880 series with all ip services features advanced, see:

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/prod/collateral/routers/ps380/qa_c67_458826.html

  Thank you

  Wen

• GETVPN Configuration Tips

  Hello Cisco support community teams.

  I intend to implement GETVPN for my Client. I have several questions about GETVPN failover behavior.

  I have test the configuration on GNS3 with C3725 router and also tested on real C2800Series router, and the result of the behavior is the same.

  1. I have 2 KS on the topology, is the GM only saved with a KS?

  2. When primary KS down, GM has not changed to secondary KS, so I need clear gdoi crypto on the GM, is there any configuration required to modify the GM car to other assets KS?

  3. I have check on the GM I had encap and decrypt, but never the decaps and decipher?

  Please find the attachment for the example topology and configuration.

  Thank you and have a nice day.

  Sincerely yours

  Audrey

  Take a look at the SEARCH it will answer most of your questions.

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/prod/collateral/vpndevc/ps6525/ps9370/ps7180/GETVPN_DIG_version_1_0_External.PDF

  Section 1.2.7

  (1) Yes.

  (2) check the DIG, avoid a need to register immediately, "Secondary KS" should become a new primary.

  (3) you say it is not reciving ecnrypted traffic or that it does not increment the counter? I would not trust GNS3. If the problem is the same on 15.1 (4) 2800 M, check with the people in the TAC.

• Card Crypto GETVPN on loopback

  Hello

  We have 6 WAN routers connected through MPLS ISP cloud, we must apply GET VPN between these WAN routers.

  We have 2 servers of keys (1800 routers), and WAN routers will act as members of the Group (6 GMs)

  The configuration files are attached for work typical configuration GETVPN (crypto map applied to the WAN interface)

  In the key server configuration, the crypto isakmp command uses the WAN IP of each router WAN (172.16.x.x) address, and since KS routers are connected to the local network (VSS), they should be able to join 172.16.X.X and therefore the subnet in 172.16.X.X is announced for the local network (check GM-configuration file under eigrp - connected redist)

  That's what our customers want to avoid! they don't want 172.16.X.X to make advertising for the local network.

  I know it's possible in the configuration GETVPN to configure, the command crypto isakmp for use the loopback address of the routers WAN instead of the WAN IP address, but in this case the card encryption should be applied to address loopback, and for this, all traffic to be encrypted and decrypted to go through the loopback on all routers WAN interfaces.

  I was wondering what is the best solution in this case, I have to use the config below on GM

  card crypto-address loopback 0
  

  TEST allowed 10 route map

  set interface Loopback0

  TEST IP policy route map-local

  But I don't know if it is correct, or there may be a better idea... so I thought share with you guys to discuss all the best ideas.

  Ali,

  We do not support cryptographic cards on loopback interfaces.

  Use the crypto-local address (in the case of vanilla IPsec) card or customer record interface (even if it is for another use) order under specifcy gdoi what inetrface or VRF you want to record source to / receive to generate a new key on.

  You can take a look at DIG:

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/prod/collateral/vpndevc/ps6525/ps9370/ps7180/GETVPN_DIG_version_1_0_External.PDF

  section 4.2.1.2.3 and other talk.

  M.

• What is GETVPN?

  Hi all

  One have good doc for functioning GETVPN?

  What this GETVPN is different from IPSec?

  Thank you for your understanding.

  The GDOI in Cisco and the JUNOS software implementation is based on the RFC 3547, that's why they work at the same time.

  Thus, so long as other vendors follow this RFC, I think they should work correctly.

  Let me know.

  Please note any workstation that you be useful.

  Post edited by: Javier Portuguez