[pptp-server] Failed CCP on linux-2.4.9/MS VPN 128-bit

Charlie Brady charlieb at e-smith.com
Mon Nov 12 15:32:11 CST 2001


On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Allan Clark wrote:

> I think that's what it's saying: the MSVPN seems to be acknowledging the
> offer from the linux side of mppe 1 0 0 60, but the linux side doesn't
> seem to expect this ack, as indicated by the following log message from
> the full trace:

It seems to be to be complaining about the syntax of the Ack. As I said,
I suspect that the Ack should restate the agreed upon config. I haven't
checked the RFC, and don't know it in any detail, so I can't say for sure.

> > > Nov 12 15:04:21 grinder pppd[13795]: rcvd [CCP ConfReq id=0x2 <mppe 1 0 0 71>]
> > > Nov 12 15:04:21 grinder pppd[13795]: sent [CCP ConfNak id=0x2 <mppe 1 0 0 60>]
> > > Nov 12 15:04:21 grinder pppd[13795]: rcvd [CCP ConfAck id=0x2]
> > > Nov 12 15:04:21 grinder pppd[13795]: Received bad configure-ack:
> > > Nov 12 15:04:21 grinder pppd[13795]: local  IP address 192.168.55.1
> > > Nov 12 15:04:21 grinder pppd[13795]: remote IP address 192.168.55.2
>
> There are people on this list who claim to have a 128-bit functioning,
> so I'm wondering if they receive the same log messages.

I have 128 bit functioning, and don't see those log messages.

Your ConfAck is clearly bogus. You've told the remote end you'll only do
40 or 128 bit bit encryption, no compression. It's replied "OK". How are
you to know what OK means?

-- 

Charlie Brady                         charlieb at e-smith.com
Lead Product Developer
Network Server Solutions Group        http://www.e-smith.com/
Mitel Networks Corporation            http://www.mitel.com/
Phone: +1 (613) 368 4376 or 564 8000  Fax: +1 (613) 564 7739





More information about the pptp-server mailing list