<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Cisco Policy Based VPN - ProxyID Query in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302807#M78879</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am receiving the below error on a Palo to Cisco policy-based VPN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;'IKE phase-2 negotiation failed when processing proxy ID. cannot find matching phase-2 tunnel for received proxy ID. received local id: 10.45.33.253/32 type IPv4_address protocol 0 port 0, received remote id: 10.104.58.0/24 type IPv4_subnet protocol 0 port 0.'&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does the proxy-ID to crypto-map ordering make a difference (i.e do they have to match EXACTLY)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Palo Alto Proxy-ID&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-1 10.45.33.253/32 10.209.11.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-2 10.45.33.254/32 10.209.11.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-3 10.45.33.253/32 10.218.8.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-4 10.45.33.254/32 10.219.8.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-5 10.45.33.253/32 10.104.58.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-6 10.45.33.254/32 10.104.58.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco Crypto-Map&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;permit ip 10.209.11.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.209.11.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.104.58.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.104.58.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.218.8.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.218.8.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254&lt;BR /&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would the above configuration caused phase-2 to fail simply due to the ordering?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I appreciate any assistance &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Baz&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:08:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>baz00r</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-12-09T23:08:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cisco Policy Based VPN - ProxyID Query</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302807#M78879</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am receiving the below error on a Palo to Cisco policy-based VPN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;'IKE phase-2 negotiation failed when processing proxy ID. cannot find matching phase-2 tunnel for received proxy ID. received local id: 10.45.33.253/32 type IPv4_address protocol 0 port 0, received remote id: 10.104.58.0/24 type IPv4_subnet protocol 0 port 0.'&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does the proxy-ID to crypto-map ordering make a difference (i.e do they have to match EXACTLY)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Palo Alto Proxy-ID&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-1 10.45.33.253/32 10.209.11.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-2 10.45.33.254/32 10.209.11.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-3 10.45.33.253/32 10.218.8.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-4 10.45.33.254/32 10.219.8.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-5 10.45.33.253/32 10.104.58.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PROXY-6 10.45.33.254/32 10.104.58.0/24 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco Crypto-Map&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;permit ip 10.209.11.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.209.11.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.104.58.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.104.58.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.218.8.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253&lt;BR /&gt;permit ip 10.218.8.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254&lt;BR /&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would the above configuration caused phase-2 to fail simply due to the ordering?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I appreciate any assistance &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Baz&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:08:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302807#M78879</guid>
      <dc:creator>baz00r</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-09T23:08:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco Policy Based VPN - ProxyID Query</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302826#M78884</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/128331"&gt;@baz00r&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I read the article below and it says PA doesn't support policy based VPN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClW8CAK" target="_blank"&gt;https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClW8CAK&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, the KB below doesn't mention anything specific about order of proxy-ids.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just talks about selecting PA as either initiator or responder when using multiple proxy-ids.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClUFCA0" target="_blank"&gt;https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClUFCA0&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:19:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302826#M78884</guid>
      <dc:creator>FarzanaMustafa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-10T03:19:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco Policy Based VPN - ProxyID Query</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302836#M78885</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Farzana,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;They don't support policy based natively (I suppose initiating) but through the use of proxy-ID's they can accept and terminate policy based VPNS (in fact we have this working already with multiple clients).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But when we update the proxy ID configuration the phase-2 neg fails.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for those articles below, I had seen those before and unfortunately don't really shed any light on my specific issue. Thank you for your response though!!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Baz&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:38:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-policy-based-vpn-proxyid-query/m-p/302836#M78885</guid>
      <dc:creator>baz00r</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-10T05:38:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

