Cisco Policy Based VPN - ProxyID Query

[baz00r]

Hi everyone,

I am receiving the below error on a Palo to Cisco policy-based VPN.

'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.'

Does the proxy-ID to crypto-map ordering make a difference (i.e do they have to match EXACTLY)?

Palo Alto Proxy-ID

PROXY-1 10.45.33.253/32 10.209.11.0/24 any

PROXY-2 10.45.33.254/32 10.209.11.0/24 any

PROXY-3 10.45.33.253/32 10.218.8.0/24 any

PROXY-4 10.45.33.254/32 10.219.8.0/24 any

PROXY-5 10.45.33.253/32 10.104.58.0/24 any

PROXY-6 10.45.33.254/32 10.104.58.0/24 any

Cisco Crypto-Map

permit ip 10.209.11.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253
permit ip 10.209.11.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254
permit ip 10.104.58.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253
permit ip 10.104.58.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254
permit ip 10.218.8.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.253
permit ip 10.218.8.0 0.0.0.255 host 10.45.33.254
!

Would the above configuration caused phase-2 to fail simply due to the ordering?

I appreciate any assistance 🙂

Baz

[FarzanaMustafa]

Hi @baz00r 

I read the article below and it says PA doesn't support policy based VPN.

https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClW8CAK

Also, the KB below doesn't mention anything specific about order of proxy-ids.

Just talks about selecting PA as either initiator or responder when using multiple proxy-ids.

https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClUFCA0

[baz00r]

Hi Farzana,

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).

But when we update the proxy ID configuration the phase-2 neg fails.

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!!

Baz