Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Site-to-site VPN failng RV320-to-RV320

I am following the information I found at http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/routers/csbr/app_notes/rv0xx_g2gvpn_an_OL-26286.pdf in an attempt to create a site to site VPN from my home to my Office.

After setting it up and attempting to start the connection from home, both routers show 'waiting for connection'.

The logs at the office show:

2014-09-30, 12:37:26 VPN Log packet from 9x.xx8.1xx.15:500: [Tunnel Authorize Fail] no connection has been authorized with policy=PSK  
2014-09-30, 12:37:26 Connection Accepted IN=eth1 SRC=96.228.129.15 DST=5x.xx.231.44 DMAC=f4:0f:1b:7d:49:e1 SMAC=b0:c6:9a:a1:f4:e8 LEN=132 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=500 DPT=500 LEN=112  
2014-09-30, 12:38:06 VPN Log packet from 9x.xx8.1xx.15:500: [Tunnel Authorize Fail] no connection has been authorized with policy=PSK  
2014-09-30, 12:38:06 Connection Accepted IN=eth1 SRC=96.228.129.15 DST=5x.xx.231.44 DMAC=f4:0f:1b:7d:49:e1 SMAC=b0:c6:9a:a1:f4:e8 LEN=132 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=500 DPT=500 LEN=112

I have compared the screens from both sites and can't see any difference in names, options, or the key. Can anybody use the above messages to point me in the right direction?

Thanks,

TonyT

 

1 REPLY
New Member

Found the problem. I needed

Found the problem. I needed NAT Traversal turned on.

TonyT

414
Views
0
Helpful
1
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content