From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Dec 27 15:31:36 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049B9C925A2 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:31:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trashcan@ellael.org) Received: from mx2.enfer-du-nord.net (mx2.enfer-du-nord.net [IPv6:2001:41d0:d:3049:1:1:0:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A4E1BFD for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:31:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trashcan@ellael.org) Received: from [IPv6:2003:8c:2e0c:ce01:846f:d63b:4897:ada6] (p2003008C2E0CCE01846FD63B4897ADA6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:8c:2e0c:ce01:846f:d63b:4897:ada6]) by mx2.enfer-du-nord.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3tp0Fx0D6RzRfX for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:31:32 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Grimm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Subject: [SOLVED] IPSec tunnel, VNET jail and routing issue Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:31:31 +0100 References: To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <7BDE3BD8-FC09-413C-801C-5985C1781754@ellael.org> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:31:36 -0000 Michael Grimm wrote: Nevermind, I solved my issue. I has been a minor typo with major = consequences. > Configuration (shown for hostA, only): >=20 > setkey.conf > # hostA hostB = hostA hostB=20 > spdadd 10.1.1.0/24 10.2.2.0/24 any -P out ipsec = esp/tunnel/1.2.3.4-10.20.30.40/require; Contrarily to this example line above, my real setkey.conf has had an = "in" instead of "out" :-(=20 > Achieved sofar: >=20 > #) Allowing arpproxy_all=3D"YES" will satisfy ARP (MACs from = opposite VNET jails will become assigned).=20 > I do not know if that is needed, but now ping from jails to = the opposite jails will at least start to send ICMP packages. Now I have to state: yes, ARP proxying is mandatory in my setup. Hmm, I need to learn more about ARP. Because now I do observe a lot of = lines like =E2=80=A6 | mike kernel: arp: proxy: ignoring request from = 10.1.1.1 via epair1a =E2=80=A6 and I do not know if I do have to be concerned about those. Do = I? Sorry for the noise! Regards, Michael