NETWORK PRESENCE ABOUT SERVICES PRODUCTS TRAINING CONTACT US SEARCH SUPPORT
 


Search
display results
words begin  exact words  any words part 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [FW-1] ike vpn question



Title: Message
a caveat.
 
i don't think the boxes are actually talking to each other. 
 
i tested this theory by changing the shared secret on one end to differ from the other.
 
The error remained the same (no proposal chosen).  I would have assumed that the log would have indicated another unique error, indicating that the shared secret negotiation failed.
 
was my assumption flawed ?
 
CF
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Washington [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FW-1] ike vpn question

Could well be, but my recollection is that target/destination stuff in Phase 2 negotiation is a source proxy ID/dest proxy ID issue, not a proposal issue.  On the devices where I've seen 'no proposal chosen' and subnet issues, they've turned up with different errors for each condition (or in the case of a Checkpoint to PIX with a subnet issue, the PIX just didn't answer at all).
 
Doesn't mean he shouldn't check the encryption domains tho.  Really curious over here to hear what he finds.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shah, Nishith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:09 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FW-1] ike vpn question

Most likely your encryption domains (subnets defined on firewall) are not identical on both sides.
 
It has to exactly match on both sides.
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Washington [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FW-1] ike vpn question

"No proposal chosen" means that the encryption settings on each end are not in sync.  Yes, I know you said they're identical, but that's what the error means and I believe it's defined in an RFC somewhere.  As cryptic as it sounds, it's being as precise as it will get without saying something verbose like "it says use DES on this side and 3DES on the other side and so we don't agree."
 
Here's the rundown of settings (cross-platform) that I know will tangle this up:
 
- preshared key vs RSA key vs certificates
- DES vs 3DES vs (who knows what else)
- ESP vs AH vs ESP+AH at the same time
- Perfect forward secrecy (PFS) on vs off
- Diffie-Hellman group for PFS (Group 1?  Group 2?  Group 3?)
 
What I've most often seen overlooked is the PFS/DH stuff.  One side has it on, the other has it off, or the two sides are using different DH groups.
 
Good luck.  I haven't seen one of these yet that didn't boil down to a mismatched setting between the two sides, and that includes the Checkpoint, NetScreen, and Cisco platforms.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferraro [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [FW-1] ike vpn question

Gentlemen:
 
I have a question for you regarding a VPN a client of mine is attempting to set up.
 
Both VPNs have identical hardware (nokia 650's), identical software (checkpoint 4.1, sp4).  All encryption settings are identical.
 
However, when the VPN ruleset is built, an error is seen in the log on one end of the VPN that says "IKE log: received notification from peer, no proposal chosen."
 
what is the root of errors of this nature ?
 
I will provide more relevant information as necessary.
 
CF
 
Christopher A. Ferraro
Senior Systems Engineer
Hubbard One

mobile:
www.hubbardone.com


 
----------------------------------

ABOUT SERVICES PRODUCTS TRAINING CONTACT US SEARCH SUPPORT SITE MAP LEGAL
   All contents © 2004 Network Presence, LLC. All rights reserved.