VPN traffic traveling through MKT is limited to 10 tunnels?

Hi,

I have a MK device (rb500R5 2.9.46 OS) without conntrack routing traffic between ether1 and wlan1(SR2) and wlan2(SR5). Just to mention that OSPF is deciding if wlan1 or wlan2 is the default gateway.
On the eth side, there is a Cisco device tunneling traffic (IPSEC) to 18 remote sites.
This device is using Dynamic Multipoint Virtual Private Network from cisco.

The problem appears when the 11th tunnel is opening. It seems that signaling is lost for this one. So, no more tunnels are possible. If tunnel 3 (for example) is closed, the mentioned 11th connects in his place with no other problems. Then, no more tunnels are connecting again. It seems keep alives are being discarded when > 10.

Ideas would be greatly apreciated!
Thanks

What level is the RouterOS liscence?

Regards
Leon

Level 4

IPSec is not limited by the license level,
http://www.mikrotik.com/pricelist.php?sect=1

Check the logs for errors.

I assume it is not limited because in fact, this traffic is not generated by the device. It is traffic flowing through it.

I have more information about the case:
Negotiations seem to accomplish for all the tunnels. The problem is keep alive traffic, I think it is protocol 50. This is the traffic that dies after 10th packet, so ‘high’ tunnels are dropped because of the lost packets.

Are you doing NAT between the Cisco and the Internet? If so, then protocol 50 (ESP) will have problems and you should use UDP encapsulation (NAT-T) for the VPN traffic.

Have you tried turning on connection tracking. Without it , RouterOS will drop all fragments.

Regards

Andrew

No NAT at all… and conntrack has been tested ON and OFF.

Other information I have been able to get: We are having CRCs on the ethernet (reported on cisco side). May it be a problem for that traffic?

Post the error messages.

While we’re at it, does debug crypto isakmp & debug crypto ipsec reveal any problems.

Regards

Andrew

if conntrack is off and you are just routing traffic, i would say the problem is with the 2 endpoints, not routeros. maybe cisco wants more money for more tunnels or something.

gonna do the debugging and post them.

About licencing for ci$co, it is not the problem: using an alternative gateway works fine.