IPSEC ESP SECURITY PROTOCOL IN TUNNEL & TRANSPORT MODE

My query is that who much IP Pachet is
added/expanded in following two case.
1. ESP IN TRANSPORT MODE.
2. ESP IN TUNNEL MODE

Transport mode: 37 bytes 3DES or 63 bytes AES
Tunnel mode 57 bytes 3 DES or 83 bytes AES
M.
Hope that helps, rate if it does

Similar Messages

  • Does iPlanet Portal Server support ipsec (IP Security Protocol)

     

    IPSec operates at the operating system level, not the application level. Solaris 8 supports IPSec so you can use iPSec to set up tunnels between the gateway and the profile server to secure the connection.
    Does this answer your question?
    Kent

  • IPSEC transport mode and GET VPN

    All,
    I am about to implement GET VPN while read the following from Cisco's website:
    IPsec transport mode suffers from fragmentation and reassembly limitations and must not be used in
    deployments where encrypted or clear packets might require fragmentation.
    I just do not understand why transport mode will suffer fragmentation and reassembly while it had less overhead than tunnel mode.

    One thing to understand about Tran sport mode vs Tunnel mode (ipsec) is thst Transport is used between acyual source and destination of the ip protocol
    Tunnel mode actually not only authenticates but also encrypts at the higher layers of the pckt
    Pix
    VPN
    IP layers
    Tunnel actual source and destination is encrypted at the upper layers and therefor when the packet gets to the IP Layer, it really doesnt know about or care about the iCV signature already withinh the upper PIX layer.
    Also from a security standpoint because of the fact that tunnel mode encrpyts and authenticated the ip infoemation whereas transport only authenticates packets

  • IPSec (transport mode) load balancing via CSM

    Suppouse that there is two servers providing service for remote aplications. Those aplications using IPSEC in transport mode. I would like to put at front CSM to load-balance beetwen both of them (persist via SRC IP is ok for me).
    Have you any expirience with transort mode? IMHO it is not possible becouse of ip header changes? (I have no exact informatin that resign from AH transforms are possible)
    What when changing to tunnel mode. Have you ever seen that configuraion working?

    I think you can for the transport mode. I have not had any luck with the Tunnel mode.

  • IPsec transport mode with IPv6?

    I am trying to set up IPsec in a IPv6 environment. However, when I configure "crypto map" I wasn't able to "set peer" to a IPv6 peer address. Why is that?
    I used Virtual Tunnel Interface instead of Crypto Map and it worked. But I need to IPsec in transport mode instead of tunnel mode.

    I think here is no support for mixed mode which is ipv6 traffic through ipv4 tunnel and vice versa in VTI . Better solution is Gre tunnel.

  • IPSec Transport Mode

    Hi,
    I am trying to setup an IPSec transport mode policy from my test server in the office to a VM in Azure in order to replicate data to a RODC.
    Both servers sit behind a NAT firewall and have private IP addresses.
    I have created a security policy at each end which specifies both the private address of the server and the public address of the cloud service (Azure) and firewall (On Prem)
    I have opened firewall ports on both sides to allow both 500/udp and 4500/udp
    Using the Network Monitor tool, I can see some IKE transmissions but I can't ping/rdp either way.
    Any ideas?
    Thanks
    Dave

    Hi Dave,
    We've not heard from you yet. I assume the information provided by me has helped. I am marking my reply as answered now.
    In case the information did not help, please feel free to unmark the answer and come back to us with your comments.
    Best regards.
    Steven Lee
    TechNet Community Support

  • Does SChannel library support DTLS(Datagram Transport Layer Security) protocol?

    Please let me know whether SChannel library supports DTLS(Datagram Transport Layer Security) protocol.

    I want to know whether DTLS(Datagram Transport Layer Security) protocol is supported by schannel. DTLS provides communication privacy for Datagram protocols. OpenSSL supports DTLS. 

  • Tunnel Transport MTU different from Configured MTU

    Hi,
    I have the following -
    interface Tunnel0
     description VPN TEST
     ip address 172.27.240.10 255.255.255.252
     ip mtu 1452
     ip virtual-reassembly in
     qos pre-classify
     tunnel source FastEthernet0/1
     tunnel mode ipsec ipv4
     tunnel destination x.x.x.x
     tunnel protection ipsec profile TEST
    end
    However, when I do a show interface tu0 I see the following - I have omitted most of Output from this. Is there a specific reason for the difference in 6 bytes?
    Tunnel0 is up, line protocol is up
      Hardware is Tunnel
      Description: TEST
      Internet address is 172.27.240.10/30
      MTU 17886 bytes, BW 100 Kbit/sec, DLY 50000 usec,
         reliability 255/255, txload 255/255, rxload 255/255
      Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
      Keepalive not set
      Tunnel source xxxx FastEthernet0/1), destination yyyyyy
       Tunnel Subblocks:
          src-track:
             Tunnel0 source tracking subblock associated with FastEthernet0/1
              Set of tunnels with source FastEthernet0/1, 1 member (includes iterators), on interface <OK>
      Tunnel protocol/transport IPSEC/IP
      Tunnel TTL 255
      Tunnel transport MTU 1446 bytes
    On the opposite end of this VPN tunnel - I see the following -
    interface Tunnel32
     description TEST VPN
     ip address 172.27.240.9 255.255.255.252
     ip mtu 1452
     qos pre-classify
     tunnel source FastEthernet0/0
     tunnel destination y.y.y.y
     tunnel mode ipsec ipv4
     tunnel protection ipsec profile TEST
    end
    When I do a show interface Tu32 however, I do not see the transport MTU configured as i do on the other router so I'm not entirely sure if the route is indeed honoring my IP MTU command of 1452
    sh int tu32
    Tunnel32 is up, line protocol is up
      Hardware is Tunnel
      Description: TEST
      Internet address is 172.27.240.9/30
      MTU 1514 bytes, BW 9 Kbit, DLY 500000 usec,
         reliability 255/255, txload 48/255, rxload 148/255
      Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
      Keepalive not set
      Tunnel source y.y.y.y (FastEthernet0/0), destination xxxxx
      Tunnel protocol/transport IPSEC/IP
      Tunnel TTL 255
      Fast tunneling enabled
      Tunnel transmit bandwidth 8000 (kbps)
      Tunnel receive bandwidth 8000 (kbps)
    Any ideas on why I am not seeing my configured MTU under the show interface command?

    Hi. Did you ever find out the reason and a solution to this problem. I am having the same issue where CUSP decides to change the transport type to TCP (from UDP) when talking to CUCM on certain invites from Acme SBC. On some invites from the same Acme SBC, CUSP doesn't change the transport type and leaves it as UDP.
    Thank you.

  • Can't get Transport Mode to Work

    Just messing around in a lab with a few routers. Trying to bring up transport mode first on an IPSEC tunnel. All seems correct, but it constantly comes up in Tunnel Mode. I can't see why?
    Can anyone see anything obvious?
    Enclosed are configs and a WireShark capture of the output - as you can see it's Tunnel Mode - and not Transport.
    The output of "show crypto ipsec sa" demonstrates the fact that its Tunnel mode.

    Thanks for the reply Rick.
    The access list is a catch-all :-
    access-list 100 permit ip any any
    It's a strange one to grasp really.
    "traffic to be protected has the same IP addresses as the IPSec peers "
    My routers are peers - 192.168.1.1 & 192.168.1.2
    If i ping from .1 to .2, or .2 to .1, in my mind this represented "the same IP addresses as the IPSEC peers". Other than the ping, i don't know how i can simulate peer traffic that would come up in transport mode. Do you?
    Once the IPSEC link is built, and it's a tunnel link, i don't think it will ever divert away from this and create a separate transport mode link, so all traffic will ride across it.
    It's not a big deal i suppose. Router to router connections don't seem to support transport mode.
    I know how the packets would look like, which is the most important thing really. The headers are just in different positions.
    Thanks again for taking the time to answer Rick.

  • RMI Protocol over JRMP transport: connection refused

    I changed the look and feel for disco plus to Jinitiator. I then started getting error RMI Protocol over JRMP transport: connection refused to host: 192.168.1.1
    I changed the settings back to java plugin 1.4 but I'm still getting the same error on all client machines.
    I'm running windows 2003 and application server 10.1.2.0.2
    Thanks for any help,
    Brian

    Hi Brian
    When you changed to JInitiator what did you set the style to be? Also, why would you not want to use the Sun Java?
    Anyhow, try getting the users to clear their local Sun Java cache, this will release the applet causing it to reload upon next connection, and try again.
    If you want to retry JInitiator, try this:
    1. Go to Control Panel | JInitiator 1.3.1.x or whatever version you are using
    2. Navigate to the Proxies tab
    3. Uncheck Use Browser Settings
    4. Click the Apply button
    5. Close all browser windows
    6. Reconnect to Discoverer Plus
    If the above steps do not help, try editing the security details of the Options menu in the Internet Explorer using this workflow:
    1. On the client machine, launch IE
    2. From the toolbar, select Tools | Internet Options
    3. Navigate to the Security tab
    4. Click on the Trusted Sites icon
    5. Click on the Sites button
    6. Add a fully, qualified HTTP link to your server
    7. Close all browser windows
    8. Reconnect to Discoverer Plus
    Of the two solutions above, the first is most likely to fix your issue. However, I advise all my customers to set up the application server connections as being trusted sites.
    One additional thing would be to delete your cookies. Discoverer Plus loves cookies.
    Best wishes
    Michael

  • WLC Guidelines L3 Transport Mode and functionality

    Hi,
    I'm implementing a LWAPP Solution and I would like to have some confirmation about LWAPP solution
    If I understand right all the traffic from the WLAN client have to pass through the dynamic interface of the controller and there are no
    opportunity to configure it in another way...
    Best Practises suggest that LWAPP AP should be placed in a different VLAN (IP Subnet) from the LWAPP WLAN client and to use LWAPP L3 Transport Mode...
    Which are the drawback if I put the LWAPP APs on the same VLAN(IP Subnet) as the LWAPP APs? If I implement the solution in this way I can still configure
    LWAPP L3 transport Mode or it isn't working???
    Thanks for sharing your opinion

    Actually, Layer 2 LWAPP mode is considered depreciated by Cisco. Also, only 4400 controllers support Layer-2 LWAPP discovery. 2000 series WLCs doesn't.
    The reason why Layer-3 LWAPP is preferable than Layer-2 LWAPP is "Layer-3 LWAPP discovery involves a series of steps in its algorithm and finds the candidate list of controller in different ways like DHCP option43, OTAP, DNA etc..,
    Layer-2 LWAPP discovery just uses one method of controller discovery that is by using layer-2 broadcast in a LWAPP frame. Since, layer-3 lwapp uses a series of controller discovery methods, it is more secured and reliabel than layer-2 LWAPP mode.

  • RMI protocol over JRMP transport error when accessing Discoverer Plus

    Hi,
    I just upgraded my Discoverer to 9.0.2.54.01. I can successfully access my Discoverer Viewer Workbooks but not my Discoverer Plus. When I try to access Plus, Applet will be started, and then it will prompt the RMI protocol error:
    Attempt 1.  RMI protocol over JRMP transport: Connection refused to host: 127.0.0.1; nested exception is:*
    java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused: connect*
    Attempt 2.  RMI protocol over http transport : Unable to attach to existing session.*
    I used browsers Mozilla3.0.5 and IE7.
    Thanks!

    Hi Andy
    It could be a Java incompatibility issue. On one of your client machines try removing Java altogether and then reconnecting to Discoverer Plus. The server should send down a new, clean version of the Java.
    Try this and let me know how you get on
    Best wishes
    Michael

  • RMI Protocol over JRMP transport: connection refused to host: 10.10.10.10

    Hi,
    We migrated our Discoverer 9.0.2 to 10.1.2. However, when we connected to Discoverer Plus, the message saying "RMI Protocol over JRMP transport: connection refused to host: 10.10.10.10" appeared. We use the "Default" communication protocol and Sun JVM 1.4+ is installed in the client. Do you know what's happening?
    Thanks.
    Andy

    Hi Andy
    It could be a Java incompatibility issue. On one of your client machines try removing Java altogether and then reconnecting to Discoverer Plus. The server should send down a new, clean version of the Java.
    Try this and let me know how you get on
    Best wishes
    Michael

  • LAyer 3 to Layer 3 LWAPP Transport mode

    Has anyone moved from layer 2 to Layer 3 transport mode?
    I want to see if it is easy as changing the transport mode on the 4124 controller and assigning an IP address to the AP.
    Thanks!

    Pretty much it's that easy. You will also have a new interface on the controller after it reboots. The interface will be an AP-Manager. You need to assign this interface an address in the same subnet as the Management interface. After that, you will also need to either set an IP address on the AP's and specify the system name of the primary controller, or setup a DHCP scope for them, and specify the Option 43/60 so the AP can find the controller.
    Here is the link to the Upgrade guide that references the option 43 information.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/wireless/ps430/prod_technical_reference09186a00804fc3dc.html#wp125304
    Also, the document is a bit lacking, it does not tell you what the VCI strings should be for all of the AP's, so here they are.
    Airespace/Cisco 1200/1000
    Airespace.AP1200
    Cisco 1200/1230
    Cisco AP c1200
    Cisco 1240
    Cisco AP c1240
    Cisco 1130
    Cisco AP c1130
    Let us know if you need any more assitance.
    Here is another document, that is a little more tuned towards an IOS DHCP server, and it does have the VCI for all the AP's.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6548/products_installation_guide_chapter09186a00807158ec.html

  • Importing content: transport modes 'all', 'data'

    I try to import *.epa file and get error for evere entity in package:
    PcdGlTransportManager.importObject(): cannot import an object in transport mode all that has been exported with transport mode data.
    It seems the thing is in transport mode. How to change it?

    Hi Denis,
    I am facing same problem whiile importing BP for ESS & MSS (ERP 2005NW04s) into EP NW04(6.0 sp14).
    Either i can modify all .properties files as suggested by you or we can upgrade EP to 04s (7.0).
    Did you face any problem after modifying all 'data' to 'all'; is it working fine?
    Subhash

Maybe you are looking for