NOt sure what you mean. I am not VPNing into another PIX. Its just my network at my office is getting this error. I can VPN from my cable modem at home just fine. Its my pix not allowing it out or in or something
If you are trying to VPN from inside the pix to an outside resource you will get this error. From cisco site:
IPSec
PIXFirewall Version 6.3 provides improved support for application inspection of Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and for using IPSec with NAT.
ESP is an IPSec protocol that provides data confidentiality, data integrity, and protection services, optional data origin authentication, and anti-replay services. ESP encapsulates the data to be protected.
However, because ESP packets do not identify the ports that are involved, PAT is performed by assigning port 0 (zero). Only one ESP tunnel is supported at a time. Also, when the PIXFirewall has this feature enabled, it cannot terminate VPN tunnels in relation to other IPSec peers.
Application inspection of ESP traffic is disabled by default. To enable this feature, enter the following command:
fixup protocol esp-ike
When this feature is enabled, PIXFirewall preserves the IKE source port. Support is not provided for the following:
ESP and fixup protocol esp-ike has absolutely nothing to do with this problem. ESP is protocol 50, and is used by IpSec VPNs.
Protocol 47 is GRE, which is used when you try to create PPTP vpns. PPTP is typically used by the Microsoft vpn client, amongst others.
Like ESP, PPTP does not pass pat devices well, as it is a portless protocol. The PAT device doesn't know how to translate it from an inside address to an outside address correctly.
Recognising this, Cisco introduced better support for this with the fixup protocol pptp 1723 command in Pix o/s 6.3
There are work arounds on earlier versions. If you only have one host behind the PIX that needs to create a pptp tunnel (the machine on 192.168.1.50) then create a static mapping that maps GRE traffic from that internal address to the outside address of the pix. If you have more than one host that requires the ability to create a PPTP vpn from behind your pix, forget it, upgrade to 6.3, which has much better vpn support than 6.2.
Ah, you've fallen for the old "Static translation syntax is weird" trick. Although the static translation starts with "static (inside, outside)" which would make you assume you should put the inside address first, and the outside address second, it's actually round the other way. Why, no'one knows ...
Thank you very much. I do understand now. Only one problem though. When I add that static command, my client on the inside 192.168.1.50 can no longer even access the PPTP server. Without the static mapping it can connect and just hangs on the authentication process and throws those errors into my syslog. Is there something else that I am mising. i am not sure why the static mapping would prevent my inside client to not be able to access the machine now. I even cleared xlate and arp....
Now that you have a public IP mapped to your internal system you still need to open your ACL on the external interface. You will need to open the ports for TCP port 1723 and for IP 47. For security you should limit the connection from only the system IP that you want to connect to. Something like:
access-list outside_inside permit gre host X.X.X.X host 192.168.1.50
access-list outside_inside permit tcp host X.X.X.X host 192.168.1.50 eq 1723
Hi,
I originally thought that and I know i have to open my access-list. But if the static worked correctly, I would have gotten the syslog message saying that the traffic was denied or blocked by acl_out. I didn't get that message. I figured I'd open the access-list up last.
Does this make sense? I'm pretty positive that I would see a syslog error... Do I have to change PAT? Or add something on my inside access-list. But still syslog would generate an error message...
For kicks I have added the correct access-list to my outside interface. And still the host 192.168.1.50 cannot access the internet nor can it access the PPTP. Is it possible that I need another special statement to allow that because the static mapping is stopping the access somehow. Any ideas are greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. I posted a link showing how to do it from cisco's website. Admittedly someone then posted an access list that won't work because it tries to allow traffic to the internal private address, rather than the nat-ed public address, which has probably messed you up a bit.
Configure the static translation as i've already explained. Configure an access control list to allow GRE traffic TO THAT STATIC PUBLIC IP ADDRESS, not the private address. Clear xlate, and you're done.
Basically you need an access list that reads
access-list outside_inside permit gre host <the pptp server> host <your static public address>
You don't need an ACL allowing port 1723 traffic. That originates from your machine inside the pix, and is allowed out. I'm assuming the static public address you're using is the same as the interface address of the pix, which is what you're also using in your nat statement.
static (inside,outside> <public static ip seen to the world which comes from my router>
192.168.1.50 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0
The same address that's used in your access-list acl_out command
Except i'm a bit worried about how you've phrased that ... are you using the public address of your router in the acl and the static command? You shouldn't be. You should be using an address that's on the outside range of the pix, for which the pix can proxy arp. Try using the outside interface address of the pix.
Yes. i was using the router address in my acl_out statement and I was using the pptp server in the static command. OK I will change the acl_out to use the outside interface address and the static to also use the outside interface address. So it will be something like this:
access-list acl_out permit gre host <pptp server> host <outside interface ip>
After staring at the pix documentation and trying to figure things out, I see that with version 6.3(0) and above its a piece of cake. Well if we won't be able to figure this out, is there someone out there that can email me the image for 6.3. I'm coming to the conclusion that it is not possible on pre 6.3...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.