Trouble site2site IOS VPN

Similar Questions

• L2L IOS VPN question

  Hello

  I created a vpn between two routers in two different sites. The VPN works well, but I noticed something that I can ping from peer1 at peer2 however the tunnel although the ACL of the interesting traffic allows no icmp between two counterparts, it is configured as follows:

  access-list 120 allow ip 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 120 allow ip 1.1.1.1 host 2.2.2.2

  No icmp is allowed, but the icmp traffic is encapsulated, encrypted, and through the tunnel, why?

  Hello moahmed1981,

  When you configure access-list for IPs, so it includes ICMP, TCP, and UDP, therefore, it is expected that you will be able to ping across the tunnel.

  If you want to change this, please configure the VPN filter to prevent the ping to the vpn tunnel.
  Here's a doc for your reference:-
  https://popravak.WordPress.com/2011/11/07/Cisco-IOS-VPN-filter/

  Kind regards
  Dinesh Moudgil

  PS Please rate helpful messages.

• L2l ios VPN does not

  Hi all

  I am reproducing my client on the GNS scénarion.

  It is a frank l2l ios vpn and I use on two NAT routers.

  When I train trigger (ping using the source interface) VPN, VPN is not coming, and there is no error during the isakmp debug

  Please go through the configuration below and suggest me

  Thanks toufik

  It does not appear to be configured for each LAN routing. May need to configure the default route on each router to point to the other.

  In addition, enabling the option 'enable isakmp crypto '.

  All the other configuration looks OK.

• IOS VPN LAN Local access

  It has been 7 years, this feature available in the IOS is still?

  https://supportforums.Cisco.com/message/263861

  Basically I connect Cisco VPN for an IOS VPN client.  I want everything, except for the local subnets some tunnel.  A little like split tunneling except internet traffic goes through the VPN.

  Thank you

  Hi Steven,

  As I said refuse statements do not work with split-ACL, but what you can do is to rebuild the split-acl. Delete rejects him and the "permit ip any any" instead you will have to allow all the internet... to clarify, in your case, it seems that you don't want to tunnel all traffic to the following subnets:

  1. 10.32.0.0/16
  2. 10.34.0.0/16
  3. 10.42.0.0/16
  4. 10.252.0.0/16

  so in your case the split-acl must include all other possible subnets. While this will make the really long acl, it's the only way to do that. The acl can be reduced by using appropriate summarizations. for example

  128.0.0.0 generic 127.255.255.255

  Kind regards

  ATRI.

• site2site distance-VPN and access-PIX - no way?

  I have,

  I have a problem wrt site2site & VPN remote access on a PIX:

  My setup is as follows: PIX (6.3) puts an end to two a site2-site VPN and also should the remote access service clients using the client VPN Cisco (4.0.x).

  The problem is with remote access VPN clients, obtain an IP address on their VPN interface, but customers cannot reach anything. (Please note that the site2site VPN runs without problem)

  To be precise (see config-excerpts below):

  The customer, who has 212.138.109.20 as its IP address gets an IP 10.0.100.1 on his card-VPN which comes from the "vpnpool of the pool.

  configured on the PIX. This customer relationships to reach servers on interface 'inside' of the PIX as 10.0.1.28.

  However, the client cannot achieve * nothing *-a server on the inside or anything like that (e.g. Internet) outside!

  Using Ethereal traces, I discovered that the packets arrive inside interface coming 10.0.100.1 (IP address of the)

  VPN - client). I also see the response from the server (10.0.1.28) to 10.0.100.1. However for some reason any package does not thanks to

  the PIX to the customer. PIX-newspapers also show packets to and from the VPN client to the inside interface - and * no. * drops. So to my knowledge the packets from server to the VPN client really should be done through the PIX.

  I have attached the following as separate files:

  (o) the parts of the PIX config

  (o) packets showing PIX-log between the VPN client and the server (s) on the interface inside

  (o) ethereal-trace done inside the watch interface also packets between VPN client and server (s)

  I have really scratched my head for a while on this one, tested a lot of things, but I really don't know what could be a problem with my

  config.

  After all, it really should be possible to run site2site - and on the same PIX VPN remote access, shouldn't it?

  Thank you very much in advance for your help,.

  -ewald

  I think that your problem is in your ACL and your crypto card:

  access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.2.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.2.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.3.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.2.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.100.0 255.255.255.0

  correspondence address 1 card crypto loc2rem 101

  This means that this map correspond to these addresses. But your dynamic map is one that must match 10.0.100.0, 10.0.1.0 traffic because your pool local ip is 10.0.100.x. I think what is happening is that the return traffic from the lan to vpn clients trying to get out of the static tunnel, which probably does not exist (for the netblocks - you probably have a security association for each pair of netblocks, but not for vpn clients) and so do not.

  I would recommend adding these lines:

  access-list 105 allow ip 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.2.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 105 allow ip 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.2.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 105 permit 10.0.3.0 ip 255.255.255.0 10.0.2.0 255.255.255.0

  no correspondence address 1 card crypto loc2rem 101

  correspondence address 1 card crypto loc2rem 105

  Then reapply:

  loc2rem interface card crypto outside

• IOS VPN 3030

  Hello group,

  I have a small request. I have a VPN 3030 hub, which has installed in IOS 4.1.5. I do not have the 4.1.5 image right now with me and is available for download in cisco. I need this image to another customer. Can I download the 4.1.5 IOS image from the hub? I had seen the tftp option, but it doesn't seem to work.

  Kind regards

  REDA

  You will need to open a TAC case and they can provide it for you. Unfortunately you cannot not TFTP image off the hub.

• Simple IOS VPN IPsec HUB and Spoke failover HUB

  Hi all

  I have a nd architecture VPN Hub spoke with Asit, IKEv1 and IPsec.

  My hub is connected to a single service provider.

  I wish I had a hardware redundancy for my hub.

  Instead of creating a double tunnel in each Department, I would like to use my router 4000ISR failover protocol.

  Is it possible to simply achieve?

  If I use IOS IPsec failover that I need to deploy my changes on the two router or (such as ASA) I can set the active router and allow the watch to receive the chenges?

  Thanks to you all.

  Johnny

  If your ISP connection is one that has a routed block and you can connect two routers same in it, you can then configure HSRP.

  The source of the Tunnel becomes the HSRP address.  Rays may not know that there are two routers.

  Easy failover.

  Alternatively, you can have a single tunnel with hubs double (if you do not use HSRP).  You don't have to borrow the double tunnels.

• iPhone 2.0 & 2811 IOS VPN

  Hello

  My iPhone can establish a session isakmp and get an address IP etc with my IOS 12.4 VPN on a cisco 2811.

  However, when I try and pass traffic, the connection of 2 ipsec phase ends the tunnel.

  I get the error as

  IPSec invalidated policy proposal

  Jul 31 13:13:32.590: ISAKMP:(0:791:HW:2): politics of ITS phase 2 is not acceptable!

  and also

  CRYPTO-6-IKMP_MODE_FAILURE: fast mode processing failed with the peer to

  Someone at - it an iPhone 2.0 to work with a 2811?

  It works with an ASA (not sure which model however)

  Thank you

  Take a look at this:

  http://discussions.Apple.com/thread.jspa?MessageID=7221787�

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/docs/security/vpn_client/cisco_vpn_client/iPhone/2.0/connectivity/guide/iPhone.html

  "What Cisco platforms work with Cisco VPN Client on the iPhone?

  PIX firewall and Cisco ASA 5500 security equipment. We recommend the latest version of the software 8.0.x (or), but you can also use software 7.2.x.

  Routers of Cisco IOS nor series VPN 3000 Concentrators VPN supports iPhone VPN features. "

  Concerning

  Farrukh

• Even IOS VPN Interface Internet Access issue

  Hi all

  I was wondering if there was any equivalent to these orders of ASA 5510 to put on a cisco IOS router 2811.

  Split-tunnel-policy excludespecified

  value of Split-tunnel-network-list LOCAL_LAN_ACCESS

  What I want to achieve is to give internet access to my vpn users without creating a split tunnel, which means the vpn user turns off the Internet on the same interface on that their vpn router ends.

  Is a 2811 for this there docs? I could not find the doc for it...

  TIA,

  -Fred

  Try this link

  Public Internet on a stick

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/products_configuration_example09186a008073b06b.shtml#intro

  Rgds

  Jorge

• What VPN Cisco IOS VPN and RADIUS client?

  Hello community,

  My company are trying to set up the remote user VPN for all of our external collaborators to the help of our existing Cisco router and a RADIUS server in Active Directory.

  I did all the AAA config on the router and set up the RADIUS, but I do not know what customer buy Cisco Remote and how to set up.

  Anyone who knows this set upwards or it uses can be me help please we don't lose our money (and my boss time!)?

  Thanks in advance.

  Paul

  Paul,

  AnyConnect lets connect you using IKEv2/IPsec and SSLVPN for IOS network head.

  There are countless examples of configuration.

  Alternatively, some clients of IKEv1/IPsec 3rd party exists and are able to connect, however is those who are not TAC (Cisco) supported. You can check the feature called ezvpn

  M.

• IOS VPN on 7200 12.3.1 and access-list problem

  I'm in IOS 12.3 (1) a 7200 and have configured it for VPN access. I use the Cisco VPN client. Wonder if someone has encountered the following problem, and if there is a fix.

  The external interface has the access-list standard applied that blocks incoming traffic. One of the rules is to block the IPs private, not routable, such as the 10.0.0.0 concern, for example.

  When I set my VPN connection, none of my packets get routed and I noticed that outside access list interface blocks the traffic. When I connect to the router through VPN, the router attributes to the client an IP address from a pool of the VPN as 10.1.1.0/24. But normal outside the access list denies this traffic as it should. But as soon as I have established a VPN connect, it seems that my encrypted VPN traffic must ignore the external interface access list.

  If I change my external access list to allow traffic from source address 10.1.1.0/24 my VPN traffic goes through correctly, but this goes against the application to have an outdoor access list that denies such traffic and have a VPN.

  Anyone else seen this problem or can recommend a software patch or version of IOS which works correctly?

  Thank you

  R

  That's how IOS has always worked, no way around it.

  The reasoning is to do with the internal routing on the router. Basically an encrypted packet inherits from the interface and initially past control of ACL as an encrypted packet. Then expelled the crypto engine and decrypted, so we now have this sitting pouch in the cryptographic engine part of the router. What do we with her now, keeping in mind users may want political route she is also, might want to exercise, qos, etc. etc. For this reason, the package is basically delivered on the external interface and running through everything, once again, this time as a decrypted packet. If the package hits the ACL twice, once encrypted and clear once.

  Your external ACL shall include the non encrypted and encrypted form of the package.

  Now, if you're afraid that people can then simply spoof packets to come from 10.1.1.0 and they will be allowed through your router, bzzzt, wrong. The first thing that the router checks when it receives a packet on an interface with a card encryption applied is that if the package needs to be encrypted, it is from his crypto ACL and its IP pools. If he receives a decrypted packet when it knows that it must have been encrypted, it will drop the package immediately and a flag a syslog something as "received the decrypted packet when it should have been."

  You can check on the old bug on this here:

  http://www.Cisco.com/cgi-bin/support/Bugtool/onebug.pl?BugID=CSCdz54626&submit=search

  and take note of the section of the security implications, you may need to slightly modify your configuration.

• Validation of the IOS VPN peer identity IP with NAT - T

  I just lost a lot of time to understand this behavior of the IOS. My conclusion reached: If you work with the good old peer identity address validation in profiles ISAKMP and the peer you are talking about is located behind a NAT, you must use the private IP address of the peer in the command "adapter address of the identity". I thought that NAT - T takes care of the translation in all sections of required configuration, but here especially, seems not so much. The interesting thing is that for all other orders, you must use the public IP address.

  See the following example (showing only the relevant articles with statements by peer inside):

  door-key crypto OUR_KEYRING

  key pre-shared key address 1.2.3.4

  Crypto isakmp PROFILE_NAME profile

  VRF TEST

  key ring OUR_KEYRING

  function identity address 192.168.99.5 255.255.255.255

  OUR_MAP 6 ipsec-isakmp crypto map

  defined peer 1.2.3.4

  the value of PROFILE_NAME isakmp-profile

  Does anyone know if this is normal or if it is a bug? It would be useful and consistent if NAT - T changed the identity of the peer address during the phase 1 negotiation, then we would not deal with peer private addressing within site to site VPN configs. I also think of IP scenarios that overlap that may occur when you work with dealing with private peer.

  See the release of relevant debugging in the attachment, after documenting a failed connection attempt (using the public, NATted IP of the peer in the command 'fit the address of identity') and once a following connection attempt (using the IP private, internal counterpart).

  My router is a C2951 with IOS 15.3 (2) T2. The counterpart is an ASA (version & unknown config so far, but I'm sure that the other engineer did not indicate what it is using a private address in its config, despite my session from behind a NAT router, too).

  Thank you & best regards

  Toni

  Toni,

  Problem with identity is that it is an encrypted package (in Exchange MM) so cannot be changed in transit, so that a host may not know reliably it is the external IP address (it can make assumptions, but he doesn't know how long it is valid for).

  Also if you "NAT 'd" identity you can't the difference between two devices behind same NAT/PAT on end of answering machine.

  There are some implmentations IKE allowing IKE to identity type and value to specify manually. IOS not among them.

  Yes decouple us identity and peer of the intellectual property, it adds flexability with a few corner cases which may arrise.

  Yet another reason why NAT is evil?

  M.

• Static on an IOS IOS VPN

  I have a situation where I have two sides of a VPN tunnel between boxes of IOS with no NAT at all. However, I have 2 servers I need to now static NAT to two new IP addresses to meet the requirements on the "end" of the network. Unfortunately I have never NAT on a Device IOS - always a PIX / ASA or box VPN-3000 and just have not got the hang of it in the configuration examples.

  A basic example of how to do it (without the other traffic from) would be greatly appreciated.

  Simply configure static NAT for both servers. Here is an example configuration.

  int e0

  Description 'LAN '.

  IP 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0

  IP nat inside

  int e1

  Description 'Internet '.

  IP 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.248

  NAT outside IP

  IP nat inside source static 172.16.1.254 10.1.1.254

  172.16.1.254--> actual address of the server.

  10.1.1.254--> global address of the server to which the remote user sends traffic.

  HTH

  Sundar

• Cisco IOS VPN Site to Site use SHA2 interoperability with Swan

  Testing a site to site VPN between a Cisco 2921 router to Strongswan VPN server.  Using IKEv2 and can create a virtual private network between the two if I use SHA1, no matter what version of SHA2 (256 or 512) is not build.  Config is IKEv2 AES-256, SHA512, DH14 (Transform is ESP-AES-256 / HMAC-SHA512-ESP), working config is IKEv2 AES-256, SHA1, DH14 (transform is ESP-AES-256 / HMAC-SHA-ESP).

  Pre-shared key is good, I Exchange SHA2 SHA1 and VPN rises.  Check the logs on the Swan watch the integrity check fails when we selected SHA2 (any version).  Packet Capture from the SHA1 and SHA2 sessions do not show really big mistakes or differences (aside from the SHA differences).  I was wondering if anyone has seen this problem?

  Chad,

  The failure of integrity is in the verification of the hash of the packets.

  I am not aware of recent anythign on our side, but I guess you are running 15.2 (4 M) or more recent version? We support suite-B on the ISR G2 of this version.

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/Tech/tk583/TK372/technologies_tech_note09186a0080bfe11c.shtml

  The problem you describe could be explained in a problem in negotiating between IOS and stongswan. If you are interested to investigate, open evidence of the TAC, let's pull debugs and see what happens.

  M.

• IOS VPN L2L, placement and discuss best practices

  We install an IOS router VPN on a for L2L 2651XM VPN bundle.

  I am trying to determine the best placement for the VPN router.

  We have Internet BR, then switch outside, Pix, then inside the switch.

  We have installed a card 4 ports in the Pix 515e to provide the DMZ interface, but have not yet configured all interfaces.

  L2L is B2B and we need so our traffic/internal network firewall/NAT.

  I have a switch for the DMZ if necessary for additional PSS.

  I recommend you to place the VPN router outside of the interface on the outside of the firewall. Ending inside the unencrypted VPN interface on port DMZ on the PIX, in this way, you can use the pix to control which internal servers users VPN can connect to.

  This way you can your traffic inside nat, but your VPN traffic to not cross a line of nat. Your VPN users also allow the pix to access your internet connection

  On the VPN router lock the outside as much as possible interface, if the IOS supports the functionality defined firewall and then use it.