vr: ipsec/l2tp vpn secret with no ID selectors#5375
Conversation
according to https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/Ipsecsecrets , the ID selector is optional.
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@weizhouapache a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ debian. SL-JID 1018 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@weizhouapache a Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
Trillian test result (tid-1780)
|
|
For testing on osx, with kvm - https://github.com/foxlet/macOS-Simple-KVM |
sureshanaparti
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@weizhouapache Tested on OS X, LGTM.
thanks @sureshanaparti for testing ! |
|
Lgtm |
PR #5375, introduced in version 4.15.2.0, removed parameter %any of VPNs client-to-site (C2S) IPSec secrets: structure before PR vr: ipsec/l2tp vpn secret with no ID selectors #5375: <IP> %any : PSK "<PSK>" structure after PR vr: ipsec/l2tp vpn secret with no ID selectors #5375: <IP> : PSK "<PSK>" Because of that, when a VPN site-so-site (S2S) is created in parallel to a VPN C2S in the same network, the C2S will not handle any IP (%any) anymore and, as the network is being tunneled to the other VPN, the connection will be handled by the final peer. This way, when a VPN S2S is created in parallel to a VPN C2S in the same network, it is only possible to connect to the C2S with the S2S PSK. As ACS is only able to implement a single C2S per network (ACS allows setting more than one IP of the network as VPN, however, only the first will be implemented) and every S2S has its own secret file, the secrets structure of C2S was changed to contain only the PSK: : PSK "<PSK>" By doing that, StrongSwan will handle correctly C2S connections from any IP and still will use the correct PSK for S2S. Co-authored-by: GutoVeronezi <daniel@scclouds.com.br>
Description
according to https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/Ipsecsecrets , the ID selector is optional.
Not sure if this PR fixes #4281
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?