Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:24:14 +0100 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu_bsd@zeninc.net> To: Alexey Popov <llp@iteranet.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Subject: Re: IPSEC documentation Message-ID: <20051229112414.GA1257@zen.inc> In-Reply-To: <43B38747.1060906@iteranet.com> References: <20051228143817.GA6898@uk.tiscali.com> <001401c60bc0$a3c87e90$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> <20051228153106.GA7041@uk.tiscali.com> <20051228164339.GB3875@zen.inc> <43B38747.1060906@iteranet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 09:50:47AM +0300, Alexey Popov wrote: > Hi. > > VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > >>- L2TP + IPSEC transport mode (= Windows road warrier) > >Did someone tried such a setup ? > >is there a L2TPD daemon running on FreeBSD which could be used for > >that ? > I'm successfully using security/racoon and net/sl2tps with Windows > XP/2003 L2TP clients. I've tried pre-shared key as well as X.509 > certificates auth. Interesting, I'll try to play with that ! > >Note also that, for now, this won't work easily, as it will require > >dynamic SP entries (roadwarriors....), but I think racoon currently > >can't deal with dynamic policies when ports specified (I'll check > >that). > racoon has passive_mode option. When it is enabled, racoon can create > SPD entries for road warriors. Not exactly: generating policies works when racoon is responder (so passive_mode is just a safety check). And I was just talking about potential complex bundles (don't remember exactly what windows sends for phase2, but I think first proposals are AH+ESP, which will cause problem for generating policies with actual racoon's versions) and about policies with ports only (but perhaps I only had some problems with complex bundles when I had a quick look at such negociations). > If we would also have NAT-T support, FreeBSD would be the best choice > of VPN concentrator. Ipsec-tools port is set to natt "kernel autodetect", and I already have a working patch for FreeBSD6 (http://ipsec-tools.sf.net/freebsd6-natt.diff), which will need some more work (cleaner way of detecting kernel NAT-T support, sync with recent NetBSD devels, port to FAST-IPSEC, etc...), which are all on my (very busy) TODO list. Yvan. -- NETASQ - Secure Internet Connectivity http://www.netasq.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051229112414.GA1257>