[hipl-users] Re: Base Exchange doesn't start
- From: Alfredo Matos <alfredo.matos@xxxxxxxx>
- To: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:49:45 +0000
The same setup with a 2.6.14.2 kernel (witch the patches are supplied
for) works perfectly. So this is 2.6.15 related.
BR,
Alfredo Matos
kslavov@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Quoting Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>:
>
>
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Alfredo Matos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a two machine setup: 3ffe::1 and 3ffe::2 .
>>> I installed a 2.6.15.4 kernel, with the BEET patches ( the 2.6.14.2
>>> pacthes apply cleanly). I am using IPv6, xfrm_user, aes+des+sha1 all as
>>> modules.
>>>
>>> The problem is when that the Initiator hipd never sends out an I1
>>> packet, although i can see the packets (tcp, from conntest-client-gai)
>>> going through the dummy0 interface, but nothing happens.
>>> The other strange thing is when i shutdown the Initiator hipd, it send
>>> ou a close packet, and this is received and processed at the responder.
>>>
>>> This happens both with userspace and main branch of the code.
>>>
>>> Any ideas of what i might be doing wrong ? (Debug is below)
>>>
>> What is your HIPL version?
>>
>> We are currently using 2.6.13.1 kernel as it has less problems with
>> various IPsec/mobility related issues. Could you try if the same problem
>> occurs with 2.6.13.1 kernel, so that we can be 100 % sure that it is a
>> kernel issue?
>>
>> We are currently recommending the use of 2.6.13.1 kernel as we are
>> finalizing the support for the BEET IPsec mode. After it is done, we are
>> going to upgrade the supported kernel version.
>>
>> If you still want to use the latest kernel, I think you may want to apply
>> the following patches:
>>
>> patches/kernel/ipv6_addr_del.patch.2.6.14.4.slavov
>> patches/kernel/rtnetlink.patch.2.6.14.4-slavov
>>
>
> These patches are incluein 2.6.15
>
>
>
>> I think there was some issue related to some ACQUIRE or SA constants that
>> changed in the latest kernels, and I also thought I fixed this already.
>> Kristian, can you remember to what this was related?
>>
>
> No, these are purely related to IPv6. First one fixed a problem in IPv6
> address
> deletion which caused also flushing of routing table. The other was related to
> netlink messages not being passed "correctly".
>
> BR,
>
Other related posts:
