Re: Re: Strongswan 5 issues in IPFire 2.13

Re: Re: Strongswan 5 issues in IPFire 2.13

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 344 bytes --]

I just compiled the latest development release of strongswan 5.1.0.

You can download it over here and install it:
https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/attachment.cgi?id=135&action=edit

I did not test it (yet), so there might be some easter eggs. You have
been warned.

Please don't forget to send feedback about your testing results.

Best,
-Michael

Re: Strongswan 5 issues in IPFire 2.13

[Stefan Schantl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]

Hello Michael,

I recently have installed your attached version of strongswan (5.1.0).

For the moment I can't find any problems. All configured tunnels came up.

I did some basic tests and was able to ping and login into different 
remote systems.

I will do some further testing and report any issues.

-Stefan
> I just compiled the latest development release of strongswan 5.1.0.
>
> You can download it over here and install it:
> https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/attachment.cgi?id=135&action=edit
>
> I did not test it (yet), so there might be some easter eggs. You have
> been warned.
>
> Please don't forget to send feedback about your testing results.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development(a)lists.ipfire.org
> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: Re: Strongswan 5 issues in IPFire 2.13

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 139 bytes --]

Hey,

here is the next development release: strongswan 5.1.0dr2.

https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/attachment.cgi?id=137&action=edit

-Michael

Strongswan 5 issues in IPFire 2.13

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2093 bytes --]

Hey,

when IPFire 2.13 was released, the latest version of strongswan was
shipped with it. Apparently, some people have problems operating their
VPN connections with it.

This is a brief summary from my point of view:

The first version with these changes that might cause trouble has been
released in August 2012 with a big headline which said: Testers needed.

 * http://planet.ipfire.org/post/testers-needed-strongswan-5-0-0
 * http://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2012-August/000039.html

My mail on the mailing list states:
> It should not require any manual interaction at all. Please install
> and give me feedback about the connection stability and the
> interoperability with other (proprietary) implementations.

It's as if someone had known...

If you think, we didn't have people who actually tested this, you are
wrong. There were a lot of people and the reports I got of them were all
like: "Yeah, this made my VPN tunnels more stable".
Especially when the configuration of one connection has been edited, the
other connections remained established all the time. A big advantage
over the implementation in IPFire 2.11!

Eight days before the final version of IPFire 2.13 was released, people
started complaining. It was not a real bug report, but just a shout out
"something went wrong, I could not be bothered, so I downgraded!". No
technical details, no logs, no what-so-ever.

Since the release, a bunch of more people complained about similar
problems. Again, no one provided (or was willing to provide) information
that helps to solve the problem. Nobody was even bothered to create a
proper bug report in bugzilla.

My VPN connections run for more than six months with strongswan 5 and I
never had any problems since then.

If someone really has interest in solving this, maybe it is time that
you start the action and help the developers. This is not a project
where you can tell people what they should do (for you). This is an Open
Source project - so everyone is able to read the source code, check what
changes have been made and to provide a fix.

-Michael