Already backported: ff7b2b0e62510ef8de28c9c4bfa34badeabec775
- Feed Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Feed Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Jun 10 2021
no_tag_node_value_mangle=True does not exist on VyOS 1.3, thus a backport is currently not possible. @jestabro can we backport this?
@Viacheslav This is confirmed fixed, I'm guessing it got fixed during the period between reporting it and now.
I can't reproduce it, VyOS 1.3-beta-202106081558
set policy prefix-list FOO rule 10 action 'permit' set policy prefix-list FOO rule 10 prefix '0.0.0.0/0' set policy route-map FOO rule 10 action 'permit' set policy route-map FOO rule 10 match ip address prefix-list 'FOO' set policy route-map FOO rule 10 set distance '220' set policy route-map FOO rule 1000 action 'permit'
Jun 9 2021
@n.fort You can try to replace True with False there (1.3 and 1.4). But it needs more tests. In some cases, it was some bugs with the DHCP server and not the primary address.
https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/blob/5d068442cf7b1863724c83168176ce2940a023fe/src/conf_mode/dhcp_server.py#L237
VyOS 1.3-beta-202106081558
Works as expected.
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 13[CFG] no IKE_SA named 'peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0' found
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 14[CFG] received stroke: initiate 'peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0'
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 06[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> initiating Main Mode IKE_SA peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0[4] to 192.0.2.2
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 06[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 06[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (180 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (160 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ SA V V V V ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received XAuth vendor ID
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received DPD vendor ID
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[CFG] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> selected proposal: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ KE No NAT-D NAT-D ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 07[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (244 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 05[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (244 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 05[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ KE No NAT-D NAT-D ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 05[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ ID HASH N(INITIAL_CONTACT) ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 05[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (108 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (76 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ ID HASH ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> IKE_SA peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0[4] established between 192.0.2.1[192.0.2.1]...192.0.2.2[192.0.2.2]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> scheduling reauthentication in 2524s
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> maximum IKE_SA lifetime 3064s
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> generating QUICK_MODE request 364019988 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 08[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (316 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 09[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (316 bytes)
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 09[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> parsed QUICK_MODE response 364019988 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 09[CFG] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> selected proposal: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_1024/NO_EXT_SEQ
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 09[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> CHILD_SA peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0{1} established with SPIs cb0aa83a_i c728156c_o and TS 10.1.0.0/24 === 10.2.3.0/24
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 09[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> generating QUICK_MODE request 364019988 [ HASH ]
Jun 9 19:57:38 r4-1 charon: 09[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|4> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (60 bytes)
[email protected]:~$Ok it already fixed in 1.3 T2916 and can be migrated to crux
In T2855#95665, @Viacheslav wrote:I can't reproduce it in 1.2.7
Jun 8 2021
This is resolved for 1.4. Do you still have this problem in 1.3 as of RC4? If so, I'll need to backport the changes.
Jun 7 2021
PR https://github.com/vyos/vyos-build/pull/169
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll ipsec_starter[2373]: charon (2374) started after 400 ms
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 05[CFG] received stroke: add connection 'peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0'
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 05[CFG] added configuration 'peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0'
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 07[CFG] received stroke: initiate 'peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0'
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 07[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> initiating Main Mode IKE_SA peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0[1] to 192.0.2.2
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 07[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 07[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (180 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (160 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ SA V V V V ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received XAuth vendor ID
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received DPD vendor ID
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[CFG] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> selected proposal: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ KE No NAT-D NAT-D ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 09[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (244 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 10[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (244 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 10[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ KE No NAT-D NAT-D ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 10[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ ID HASH N(INITIAL_CONTACT) ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 10[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (108 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (76 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ ID HASH ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> IKE_SA peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0[1] established between 192.0.2.1[192.0.2.1]...192.0.2.2[192.0.2.2]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> scheduling rekeying in 2720s
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> maximum IKE_SA lifetime 3260s
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> generating QUICK_MODE request 3783917425 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 11[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (316 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 12[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> received packet: from 192.0.2.2[500] to 192.0.2.1[500] (316 bytes)
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 12[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> parsed QUICK_MODE response 3783917425 [ HASH SA No KE ID ID ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 12[CFG] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> selected proposal: ESP:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/MODP_1024/NO_EXT_SEQ
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 12[IKE] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> CHILD_SA peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0{1} established with SPIs c4d940b7_i c9a69e83_o and TS 10.1.0.0/24 === 10.2.3.0/24
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 12[ENC] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> generating QUICK_MODE request 3783917425 [ HASH ]
Jun 8 00:59:20 r1-roll charon: 12[NET] <peer-192.0.2.2-tunnel-0|1> sending packet: from 192.0.2.1[500] to 192.0.2.2[500] (60 bytes)@arvin This functions in all versions of VyOS.
I can't reproduce it in 1.2.7 and VyOS 1.3-beta-202105272051
@jingyun Can you describe steps on how to reproduce it? Or re-check it.
My test config after reboot works fine
set interfaces bridge br0 member interface tun0 set interfaces tunnel tun0 encapsulation 'gre-bridge' set interfaces tunnel tun0 local-ip '100.64.0.1' set interfaces tunnel tun0 remote-ip '100.64.0.254'
In the crux.
set system conntrack timeout custom rule 10 destination address '203.0.113.74' set system conntrack timeout custom rule 10 destination port '80' set system conntrack timeout custom rule 10 protocol tcp established '300' set system conntrack timeout custom rule 10 source address '192.0.2.168'
commit
vyos@r2-lts# commit [ system conntrack hash-size 32768 ] Updated conntrack hash size. This change will take affect when the system is rebooted.
It looks like your assessment is correct. It also seems like next-hop IP would be sufficient as well if I wasn't dealing with dynamic WAN IPs. For the moment I'm sticking with interface instead of dhcp-interface. The related issue you sent seems exactly related to this.
Clarifying as requested by c-po:
I believe I have found out why modification/deletion of rules fails. This is the rule definition in iptables:
Jun 6 2021
I think it is also related https://phabricator.vyos.net/T3522
I have checked that functionality , i can replicate the issues .although there is a workaround if you "set protocols static table 11 route 0.0.0.0/0 dhcp-interface " any interfaces , it doesn't see in your table ( table 10 /11 ) we can see theses routes in the default table , let me show :
Jun 5 2021
Jun 4 2021
I wonder why this is flagged only as refactoring bit you open an entire new CLI tree.
PR draft: https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/863