From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 13:44:40 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64E9106566B for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from harunaga@harunaga.ru) Received: from Harunaga.ru (harunaga.ru [80.85.150.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9263A8FC23 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from harunaga@harunaga.ru) Received: from thinkpad.kharun.tvit.ru (ThinkPad.kharun.tvit.ru [80.85.145.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Harunaga.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF69159DFD for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:44:38 +0600 (YEKST) From: Daniil Harun To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:44:38 +0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <200806261609.01289.harunaga@harunaga.ru> <20080626114752.GA3121@zen.inc> In-Reply-To: <20080626114752.GA3121@zen.inc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806261944.39032.harunaga@harunaga.ru> Subject: Re: patch for IPSEC_NAT_T X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:44:41 -0000 Hi! > > But when the host is placed over NAT, everything stops working. > > After negotiates IKE and key additions to the database SA traffic does > > not pass. "tcpdump enc0" shows that traffic is decoded normaly, but then > > he does not processed, packets discarded. > > Counters ipfw to rule 1 does not grow. At FreeBSD 6.2 I have the same > > problem (FAST_IPSEC or KAME IPSEC). > > ESP transport with NAT-T may need NAT-OA support, which is not > provided by the actual patch, nor by userland. > > "may", because checksums (which needs that NAT-OA payload to be > correctly recomputed by the destination) are optionnal on UDP, and, > afaik, L2TP is encapsulated in UDP datagrams. > > Looks like XP sets the checksums for UDP datagrams..... In such a case should help it: sysctl net.inet.udp.checksum=0 ? -- Best regards, Harun Daniil