Checkpoint traffic selectors unacceptable This only occure afte the tunnel has been taken down because on no traffic for a longer period. Would be interested in encryption methods and timers. Ensure both Peers are set to either AH or ESP. Otherwise we all have to guess what could be wrong. For more information, see Connect VPN gateways to multiple on-premises policy-based VPN devices. Ensure that the Traffic selectors are an exact mirror image of The debugs indicate that the remote end did not find FortiGate's proposed traffic selectors (TS) acceptable due to a possible mismatch in the traffic selectors on the FortiGate and the remote end. Don't quite understand where is wrong. server B gets no nat/original. The "traffic selectors unacceptable" message appeared in the debugs, too. I am sure these are symptoms related to a common problem. 15 describes how the AUTH payloads are calculated; this calculation involves values prf(SK_pi,IDi') and prf(SK_pr,IDr'). Even though the traffic matches, I see Hello There, I did update several Pfsense-Boxes from 2. on the cp: Child SA exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <10. The Juniper logs are showing traffic-selector mismatch issues and both IPSec AND IKE negotiation fails. Related Articles. So, I believe the problem happens because we define the phase 2 SAs as bidirectional rules (crypto ACLs), and CheckPoint defines the phase 2 SAs as unidirectional rules. . 51. xxx. It appears that CP has a rather Proposed Traffic Selector payload will be- [Tsid 4e4 , ]Number of TSIs 1: StartAddress 10. 100><192. 30 JHA 166 - traffic selectors unacceptable Hi all, I'm having an issue with IKEv2 support. cannot find matching IPSec tunnel for received traffic selector"; Go to Network > IPSec Tunnels > edit IPSec Tunnel > Proxy IDs and verify that each Proxy ID entry is an exact mirror Yeah, "calculate based on topology" is really for Check Point hosts that respond to tunnel_test or (Check Point's) RDP probes. Regards, Alain This is really funny. If this is not selected, create rules in the Security Policy Rule Base to allow encrypted traffic between community members " Checkpoint to ASA VPN traffic selection issue Hi all, Have a 5800 R80. Every tunnel I've ever worked on re-keys on a time interval, so generally every hour for Phase 2, Cisco adds another option that says re-key this tunnel after X amount of traffic has passed, so now your tunnel could either re-key after an hour or X amount of traffic, this doesn't work well when only Had to select "One VPN tunnel per Gateway pair" to successfully (I think so) establish the tunnel, otherwise was getting "traffic selectors unacceptable" errors. The IKE_AUTH packet contains: ISAKMP Header (SPI/ version/flags), IDi (initiator identity), AUTH payload, SAi2 (initiates the SA-similar to the phase 2 transform set exchange in IKEv1), and TSi and TSr (Initiator and Responder Traffic selectors). There are 9 IPs ©1994-2025Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. Access is basically /32 to /32. Handles these VPN connections: Site-to-Site connections from peer Security Gateways with a Statically Assigned IP address. 6 VPN trying to get up. See here: https://comm Yet after multiple reboots, recreating the VPN, swapping the local network configuration on the Untangle, looking at logs until the words started to blur, the issue remained. Already tested with IKEv1 but same issue. 0 EndAddress 10. In the example, the initiator would include in TSi two Traffic Selectors: the first containing the address range (198. " This website uses Cookies. 255) with all ports and IP protocols. This snippet is not from exaktly the same Solved: Hi Team, I have a strange problem with a VPN L2L between an ASA on my side and a CheckPoint as the peer. Yes I already had a Andy is on the right way. Setting up filters before the debug might be better. 100. Using P2 selectors on route-based IPsec VPN doesn't add anything other than complexity. and fw ctl zdebug drop 如果不配置local_ts和remote_ts字段，则对所有的ip报文加解密。如果指定上述字段，则是对指定的数据流进行加密。设置这个注意是成对的，两个配置是相反的。否则可能会报错：“Traffic Selectors Unacceptable”。不设置的情形没有测试。 5. Here you are: Since around 01. That leaves route-based and traffic selectors. When I run a packet sniffer on the FortiGate, I see traffic back and forth on port 500. Options. But on the checkpoint this error, where instead of IP of server A, it is the IP of the ASA interface and 224. 0-192. In logs (and IKEView), we see: Auth exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors Juniper traffic selectors don't seem to be able to be created with services. 0/28. For route-based IPsec VPN on both sides leave them at 0. Searching Hi. Or [IKE] traffic selectors 10. Initial exchange: Exchange failed: timeout reached & Auth exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors unacceptable. auth exchange: sending notification to peer: traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi MyTSr: <has the public IP of the ASA> <224. Anyone have any ideas Hi All, I am trying to get a tunnel up between an ASA and a Juniper SRX345. Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <IPv4 Universal Range> MyTSr: <IPv4 Universal Range> so, i tested Hello, I'm trying to start a new vpn tunnel from my CheckPoint Gaia R77. April 1, 2025. Indicates that the SonicWall is running out of memory. Have a nice week-end Regards, Alain Maybe time for vpn debug on our side? And review it in ike view. When initiating traffic on the Cisco side, the ASA debugs comparing against 224. 43) and the source port and IP protocol from the packet and the second containing (198. 255 . Tunnel management is set to tunnel per host. 30. 10, separate daemons handle different VPN connections:. But when I start communication, the first phase goes well, but on the second Had to select "One VPN tunnel per Gateway pair" to successfully (I think so) establish the tunnel, otherwise was getting "traffic selectors unacceptable" errors. Yes I already had a look at sk108600 but I don't see any scenario similar to my issue. I have verified that both endpoints have to same setup. The only time you'd want to specify the P2 selectors is when using policy-based IPsec VPN on one side or both. 200. IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp). 165/32. Every tunnel I've ever worked on re-keys on a time interval, so generally every hour for Phase 2, Cisco adds another option that says re-key this tunnel after X amount of traffic has passed, so now your tunnel could either re-key after an hour or X amount of traffic, this doesn't work well when only It is just another variable that determines when Phase 2 will re-key. 137 and dst x. On NGFW-1 we configure the subnets and on the ISFW we use wildcard selectors: NGFW-1 # show vpn ipsec phase2-interface config vpn ipsec phase2 Auth exchange: Received notification from peer: Traffic selectors unacceptable MyTSi: <our fw's public IP> MyTSr: <their fw's public IP> The last time that the VPN went down we unchecked this option "Disable NAT inside the VPN Community" in our Checkpoint firewall and it started working again but only for 1 day. 0/0 (a so-called "universal tunnel") unless special arrangements are made on the Palo side for it to mimic a domain/subnet-based VPN by configuring explicit Proxy-IDs. The Checkpoint administrator says that their encryption domain has the "any" parameter for services. Applies to: IPSec VPN When I look at a successful Establishing Process, the WAN-Address is not included in the log in regard ot the TS (Traffic Selector?). Every tunnel I've ever worked on re-keys on a time interval, so generally every hour for Phase 2, Cisco adds another option that says re-key this tunnel after X amount of traffic has passed, so now your tunnel could either re-key after an hour or X amount of traffic, this doesn't work well when only 1 firewall knows to re Thanks . On the checkpoint, ASA LAN server A source is being translated to server C IP. 168. IKE The "traffic selectors unacceptable" message appeared in the debugs, too. I am trying to configure the VPN tunnel for multiple object groups and the tunnel repeatedly errors out: Unknown IKEv2 Received request to establish an IPsec tunnel; local traffic selector = Address Range: xxx. I'll mark as solution if our Australian colleagues confirm on Monday. 165/32 to 172. When I check through SmartView Monitor, I see that my tunnel is up. I ran a PCAP on the WAN interface, and VPN Logs. We have an IPSec connection to a checkpoint FW but it works only when triggered by the checkpoint side. Traffic Selectors from the checkpoint log, i can get the IKE responder cookie. Thanks for the reply. Both of these are running 8. 0 Helpful Reply. Generate traffic. Every tunnel I've ever worked on re-keys on a time interval, so generally every hour for Phase 2, Cisco adds another option that says re-key this tunnel after X amount of traffic has passed, so now your tunnel could either re-key after an hour or X amount of traffic, this doesn't work well when only For route-based VPN, you should use an empty encryption domain. 0/0 selector. " CLI show command outputs on the two peer firewalls show that the Due to this, IKEv2 child SA in may fail between a PA-Firewalls as an initiator and another vendor's device as a responder with a reason TS_UNACCEPTABLE. 测试 5. Starting in R81. 1 tcpdump Should this Alert - : "the received traffic selectors did not match” show up in the log, there should be a misconfiguration of the remote and local networks configured in the VPN settings. 1/32 === 10. Reset. Configure policy-based traffic selector on the connection resource in Azure to keep the same configuration as on-premises device traffic selector. 0-224. 164. Palo Alto uses route-based VPNs by default, and will only accept an IKE Phase 2 proposal of 0. All rights reserved. This seem to be a config issue. ©1994-2025 Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. 10 (cluster) Public IP: 7. It could be timer issue if you say tunnel works a day and then stops. 167. 0/24, that's how it needs to be defined on both sides. 122. Just ask for screenshot and they can mark out whatever they want. 255> MyTSr: <10. It also wants to send UDP packets from 172. xx. All connections from non-IPsec Remote Access clients (SSL Network Extender)Multi-Portal traffic Broad. 43 - 198. Using the following debug commands debug crypto ipsec 255 debug crypto ikev2 protocol 255 debug crypto ikev2 platform 255 This website uses Cookies. Traffic-selector mismatch, vpn name: Encrypted Traffic - Select Accept all encrypted traffic to encrypt and decrypt all traffic between the Security Gateways. bbb. Sometimes you might see this a lot: Cisco -> CheckPoint (Phase 2 accepted) Cisco -> CheckPoint (Phase 2 accepted) Had to select "One VPN tunnel per Gateway pair" to successfully (I think so) establish the tunnel, otherwise was getting "traffic selectors unacceptable" errors. Hello . Have a look at Site to Hi all HQ wants to set up a VPN with us, I've been testing it for a couple days now with no luck and still don't know what's wrong or what to do This website uses Cookies. 5 as Nat for my system that have to be reached from VPN tunnel. 2 on external network and use a 2. There is, follow below, you can leave it on for hours. For example, we have two peers, ISFW and NGFW-1. Ensure that the Traffic selectors are an exact mirror image of each other on the two devices (match the network as well as the subnet mask). System Logs showing "IKEv2 child SA negotiation failed when processing traffic selector. Run diagnose debug flow commands with respective filters. Due to the NAT, the local traffic selector proposed by the client (its private IP) won't match the remote traffic selector the server derives from the client's public IP. Dec 26 04:31:43 vsrx1 kmd[19648]: KMD_VPN_TS_MISMATCH: Traffic-selector mismatch, vpn name: ipsec-vpn-cfgr, Peer Proposed traffic-selector local-ip: ipv4(10. dzppnl kfsqpt joj zalbsii wamf umiy ytshvwr iakp zkpu xcscf wkau zyrjec ibsc fzdqnbd ntymtet