Linksys RV042 VPN connection to a Cisco 1720 behind a firewall

I am attempting to set up a remote site connection to my main site using a RV042 to a Cisco 1720 and am recvieving the following in the logs:

We require peer to have ID '', but peer declares ''
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Are you seeing this on the RV042?

What kind of firewall do you have in front of the 1720? Is that firewall's IP actually and you are trying to NAT it to the 1720 at ?
lalkacrAuthor Commented:
Yes, I am seeing this on the RV042, in the log file.  The 1720 is behind a PIX 515E.  The is the public IP of the 1720 (one-to-one NAT). is the private IP of the 1720.

The 1720 currently has several other site connected to it using other router models.  So, I know the 1720 is configured properly.  As a matter of fact, the RV042 replaced another router that was connected to 1720.
Have you enabled NAT-transparency on the PIX?
    isakmp nat-traversal 20

Ultimate Tool Kit for Technology Solution Provider

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy now.

lalkacrAuthor Commented:
I did not, but I do now.  However, it does not make a diff.
Have you made any progress? Any changes to the situation?
Unfortunately, I don't have a RV042 to test the configuration with..
lalkacrAuthor Commented:
Unfortunately, no.  At this point, because of our continued growth and the absolute lack of the help from Linksys, I am going to start swapping Linksys router for Cisco 501s.

Thanks for your suggestions.
Good call. I was hoping that Linksys tech support would improve after Cisco bouth them, but I guess that won't happen anytime soon..

Good luck!
Do you need any more assistance or information?
Can you close out this long-forgotten question?
Here's how:


Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.