Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    NTP Server not synchronizing if localhost selected

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    31 Posts 3 Posters 3.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • johnpozJ
      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @stephenw10
      last edited by

      @stephenw10 ah.. ok that makes sense.. But yeah even if did localhost as source, normally the outbound nat would adjust that.. Sure wouldn't work using loopback as source ;)

      An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
      If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
      Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
      SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

      T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • T
        tjsober @johnpoz
        last edited by

        @johnpoz And that's my suspicion, although there is still something odd that I clearly don't understand. For some reason it is binding to 127.0.0.0 because it is a lower number than my LAN's (169) or my WAN (<100). I recall reading on one of the forum posts that for outgoing query's NTP binds to the lowest numbered address (or was it interface? I wish I could find that post now). I'm going to try redoing the Outgoing NAT rules as soon as I can and see if that makes a difference. Thanks!

        johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • johnpozJ
          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
          last edited by johnpoz

          @tjsober said in NTP Server not synchronizing if localhost selected:

          LAN's (169)

          I sure hope your lan is not a 169.254 address.. that going to have all kinds of issues as well - that is a link local sort of address.. Without some changes I don't think pfsense would even route or nat that.. I think there is a checkbox somewhere to allow for that? But its not a good choice to use such addressing.

          An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
          If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
          Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
          SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

          T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            tjsober @johnpoz
            last edited by

            @johnpoz God. Sorry. Trying to multitask and failing. Not sure I can even blame dyslexia...

            All LAN's and VLAN's are on 192.168.x.x addresses.

            Can't get help if I'm not accurate :( Apologies.

            johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • johnpozJ
              johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
              last edited by

              @tjsober hahah - no problem.. But good to hear not trying to use 169.254, that range is suppose to have like ttl of 1, and not route, etc. etc. There are some special use cases where you might "have" to use it because your forced by some nonsense - I think they did some stuff recently to allow for such craziness ;)

              An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
              If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
              Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
              SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T
                tjsober @stephenw10
                last edited by

                @stephenw10 It was a long shot but I tried switching to manual NAT, deleting the rules, and then switching back to automatic. No change in the behavior. Very odd.

                I guess I just leave localhost out of the NTP network selection list. Am I breaking something else internal to the FW if it isn't selected?

                johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • johnpozJ
                  johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
                  last edited by

                  @tjsober what ntp server are you trying to talk too? If your ntp server is local to your network there would be no nat done talking to some internal IP via your lan side interfaces.

                  An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                  If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                  Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                  SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                  T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    tjsober @johnpoz
                    last edited by

                    @johnpoz Not local. Servers are below with only the "is a pool" checkbox marked.

                    0.us.pool.ntp.org
                    1.us.pool.ntp.org
                    2.us.pool.ntp.org
                    3.us.pool.ntp.org

                    Everything else on the NTP server page is default.

                    johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • johnpozJ
                      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
                      last edited by

                      @tjsober so can you sniff on your wan - do you see this traffic going out? When you have localhost selected - and its going out with 127.0.0.1 as the source?

                      An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                      If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                      Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                      SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                      T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • T
                        tjsober @johnpoz
                        last edited by

                        @johnpoz That would be quite informative. However, I don't think I have that capability as I would need to sniff between the modem and the pfsense box and I do not think I can put another device there...hmmm. Maybe I can by temporarily using one of the other firewalls I have lying around. I'll have to make sure a switch doesn't hid the traffic from me. I might have an old hub I can use for that.

                        Thanks...there might be a way. It will take a bit as I have to keep the network up most of the time. Appreciate the suggestion.

                        johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • johnpozJ
                          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
                          last edited by

                          @tjsober just sniff on pfsense using diagnostic packet capture.

                          An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                          If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                          Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                          SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                          T 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            tjsober @johnpoz
                            last edited by

                            @johnpoz Obviously I didn't know I could do that :) Looking at that page now. Thanks.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • T
                              tjsober @johnpoz
                              last edited by

                              @johnpoz Hopefully I am doing this right. But in either case I don't see 127.0.0.0 coming out of the WAN.

                              If I have localhost selected in the NTP server settings and set up the packet capture on the external WAN port 123, the capture shows a very small number of queries (about every 5 seconds but it varies...some captures came up with fewer even though I waited a longer time) and the NTP status page only has the 4 pool placeholders (I obfuscated my external address).

                              08:20:11.131407 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.23207 > 91.189.91.157.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:20:11.188443 IP 91.189.91.157.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.23207: UDP, length 48
                              08:20:16.429680 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.10587 > 216.239.35.4.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:20:16.488484 IP 216.239.35.4.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.10587: UDP, length 48
                              08:20:16.631163 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.61541 > 216.239.35.0.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:20:16.662519 IP 216.239.35.0.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.61541: UDP, length 48

                              If I unselect localhost on the server and repeat the same packet capture settings, I have a bunch of traffic with multiple queries per second to the hosts that are listed on the NTP status page and the status page look good (increasing reach).

                              08:15:02.385915 IP 64.79.100.196.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:02.401901 IP 107.194.210.155.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:02.405044 IP 142.147.88.111.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:02.405793 IP 192.48.105.15.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:02.410820 IP 50.205.57.38.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:02.485883 IP 38.229.52.9.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12162: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:03.333342 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.39530 > 74.6.168.72.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:03.333352 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.2826 > 204.2.134.162.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:03.333364 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.6699 > 45.79.111.114.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:03.395559 IP 45.79.111.114.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.6699: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:03.402028 IP 204.2.134.162.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.2826: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:03.411953 IP 74.6.168.72.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.39530: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316106 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090 > 50.205.57.38.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316116 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967 > 192.48.105.15.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316122 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12162 > 38.229.52.9.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316131 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551 > 107.194.210.155.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316137 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.58278 > 38.229.56.9.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316146 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863 > 64.79.100.196.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.316152 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376 > 142.147.88.111.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.354872 IP 38.229.56.9.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.58278: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.355546 IP 64.79.100.196.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.370874 IP 107.194.210.155.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.374696 IP 142.147.88.111.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.375746 IP 192.48.105.15.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.380672 IP 50.205.57.38.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:04.458872 IP 38.229.52.9.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12162: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:05.318165 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.39530 > 74.6.168.72.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:05.318175 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.2826 > 204.2.134.162.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:05.318184 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.6699 > 45.79.111.114.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:05.381470 IP 45.79.111.114.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.6699: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:05.386845 IP 204.2.134.162.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.2826: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:05.393770 IP 74.6.168.72.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.39530: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334311 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090 > 50.205.57.38.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334322 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967 > 192.48.105.15.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334330 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12162 > 38.229.52.9.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334337 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551 > 107.194.210.155.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334345 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.58278 > 38.229.56.9.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334352 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863 > 64.79.100.196.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.334359 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376 > 142.147.88.111.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.371777 IP 38.229.56.9.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.58278: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.373076 IP 64.79.100.196.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.388750 IP 107.194.210.155.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.392176 IP 142.147.88.111.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.396649 IP 192.48.105.15.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.402724 IP 50.205.57.38.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:06.476775 IP 38.229.52.9.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12162: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:07.327668 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.39530 > 74.6.168.72.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:07.327680 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.2826 > 204.2.134.162.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:07.396804 IP 204.2.134.162.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.2826: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:07.406730 IP 74.6.168.72.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.39530: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:07.413128 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.16773 > 216.239.35.12.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:07.446754 IP 216.239.35.12.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.16773: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.331466 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090 > 50.205.57.38.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.331482 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967 > 192.48.105.15.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.331494 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551 > 107.194.210.155.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.331506 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863 > 64.79.100.196.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.331517 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376 > 142.147.88.111.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.370885 IP 64.79.100.196.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.26863: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.388662 IP 107.194.210.155.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.35551: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.389940 IP 142.147.88.111.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.4376: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.390686 IP 192.48.105.15.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.13967: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:08.395610 IP 50.205.57.38.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:10.315957 IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090 > 50.205.57.38.123: UDP, length 48
                              08:15:10.379708 IP 50.205.57.38.123 > XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.12090: UDP, length 48

                              I'm not sure how to interpret the difference in query rate.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • T
                                tjsober @johnpoz
                                last edited by tjsober

                                @johnpoz So I think I figured out that the small number of queries are coming from a couple of the linux boxes I have on my network and not from the firewall. They are not currently configured to get time from pfSense. (Edit: also probably a chromecast as google is in there)

                                johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • johnpozJ
                                  johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
                                  last edited by johnpoz

                                  @tjsober yeah I was going to try and duplicate your problem. But I have loads of ntp traffic back and forth since I provide a ntp server to the ntp pool. I would have to block my ntp server from answering, etc. Or it would be hard to weed through all the ntp traffic.

                                  But I don't see any 127.0.0.1 as source traffic there.. So doesn't seem like pfsense is not natting to yoru public IP even when localhost is selected?

                                  edit: But what I did do is just select localhost, and then pointed it to pool.ntp.org and that seems to be broken.

                                  broken.jpg

                                  edit2: If I select the local interfaces I want to provide time to, and localhost - its seems to be working

                                  moreinterfaces.jpg

                                  edit3: Why are you wanting to select localhost? I don't really see a reason to do that, other than you would think it should be fine to do..

                                  An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                  If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                  Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                  SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                                  T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • T
                                    tjsober @johnpoz
                                    last edited by tjsober

                                    @johnpoz I figured something out. I disabled pfBlockerNG and restarted NTP Server with localhost selected in the NTP settings. And guess what? NTP syncs fine.

                                    Then I turned pfblocker back on and NTP continued to sync. So I restarted the NTP server and it broke.

                                    I found this because put in some rules to lock down NTP so the linux boxes couldn't reach out and repeated the packet capture. And the IP that showed up in the capture was 10.10.10.1... the pfBlocker VIP. That's not going to work!

                                    Isn't it always what is left out of the problem description that is the issue...and I tried to be complete :)

                                    I have to start looking at pfblocker to see how it is messing with localhost or why the NTP server is trying to sync using the pfblocker VIP. That's probably going to be a can of worms. Interestingly, it should be configured the same as the SG-5100 where I don't have this issue. But I'll have to look closer as there are some differences (currently no VLAN's on the SG5100 for example).

                                    I still don't understand why the port forward rule in the post I originally linked fixes this. And I am back to wondering if anything matters if localhost isn't bound to the NTP server. The rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.

                                    Thank you so much for taking the time to teach me some things. Your patience is appreciated.

                                    johnpozJ stephenw10S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • johnpozJ
                                      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @tjsober
                                      last edited by johnpoz

                                      @tjsober said in NTP Server not synchronizing if localhost selected:

                                      10.10.10.1... the pfBlocker VIP. That's not going to work!

                                      nope that wouldn't work ;) hmmm I would have to change back and sniff to see if have same thing.. But I am not using pfblocker in that fashion, I have no vip setup with it. I just use it to manipulate some aliases that I use in my firewall.

                                      Rabbit holes can be fun, if you ever get to the end.. Other times they can be real head scratchers ;)

                                      edit: see I don't have that feature enabled in pfblocker

                                      vip.jpg

                                      It shouldn't be creating that vip if I don't have that enabled - have to take a double check look see.

                                      edit2: I just looked and there is no vip on my loopback interface.. I do see my other vip on my wan interface, etc. But no 10.10.10.1 anywhere on any interface..

                                      An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                      If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                      Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                      SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                                      T 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • stephenw10S
                                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator @tjsober
                                        last edited by

                                        @tjsober said in NTP Server not synchronizing if localhost selected:

                                        I still don't understand why the port forward rule in the post I originally linked fixes this.

                                        Probably because 'This firewall' is all IPs addresses on the firewall, including VIPs.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • T
                                          tjsober @johnpoz
                                          last edited by tjsober

                                          @johnpoz Under pfBlockerNG - DNSBL if I change the Web Server Interface from Localhost to my LAN with high numbered unused ports, the problem is fixed. Likely because the LAN is handled by the outgoing NAT auto rules.

                                          Oddly, the SG-5100 doesn't seem to care about that setting and the NTP server just works.

                                          More homework to do...

                                          EDIT: What I said doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't explain why NTP is picking localhost as the outgoing port? It only identifies some interaction with pfBlocker.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • T
                                            tjsober @johnpoz
                                            last edited by tjsober

                                            @johnpoz @johnpoz The last comments in this post from 4 years ago seem to discuss this same problem.

                                            https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/7k00yz/dnsbl_blocks_ntp_server_from_syncing/

                                            But I do not understand why NTP decides to bind to the pfblocker VIP. So more googling and I found a person talking about NTP

                                            https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/comments/kfnujp/avahi_binding_to_the_virtual_ip_of_pfblockerng/

                                            So I shut off Avahi and set pfblocker back to localhost and all is well. I re-enabled avahi, restarted NTP and it's broken again. More googling...but I guess this is progress.

                                            johnpozJ stephenw10S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.