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

    Gateway duplicates usage example

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPsec
    21 Posts 5 Posters 3.0k 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.
    • jimpJ
      jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
      last edited by

      You'd have to rely on using a gateway group for the default route and only one tunnel would ever work at a time.

      I have never been a fan of that option because it's inherently going to be broken in some way no matter what you do, you can't route to the same destination out multiple paths. Some people think it's easier for them to manage in some way, which is a matter of personal preference I suppose, but it never surprises me when it fails to work how someone expects.

      You're better off with one single tunnel using a gateway group for the interface so it can switch as you see fit. Yes, failover can be slow that way, but it does work.

      That, or if the remote end can have multiple IP addresses, setup tunnels to different destination addresses for each WAN.

      Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

      Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

      Do not Chat/PM for help!

      M J 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • M
        mcado_dealtis @jimp
        last edited by

        @jimp Hello thank you for your answer, but what is the usage of the option: duplicate gateway.
        That option is made then, right?
        Currently, it is not possible for pfsense+ to have 3 tunnels with the same destination (same IP)?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • jimpJ
          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
          last edited by

          It might work if and only if the remote system initiates the tunnels -- never the firewall with multiple WANs. Also assuming it's VTI, you could never have more than one tunnel with overlapping tunnel mode P2s work. Set all tunnels to responder only and configure the remote end to initiate. Only setup keep alives on the remote, and none locally. Even then it may only work if your WANs are properly setup for reply-to to function.

          AFAIK that options was more about having the tunnels configured and in place so they could work one at a time, not all at once, people just didn't want to have to keep editing and changing the tunnels when they could just enable/disable them easily.

          Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

          Do not Chat/PM for help!

          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            mcado_dealtis @jimp
            last edited by mcado_dealtis

            @jimp ok, i understand now.
            In my case, my pfsense is set as reponder only, with 3 tunnel, 2 are ok, the third loop (status down > status up, etc)
            the remote firewall is a fortinet. My client imposes on me this configuration, i hunderstood there are no solution ?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • J
              jazzl0ver @jimp
              last edited by jazzl0ver

              thank you very much for the prompt reply, @jimp !

              you can't route to the same destination out multiple paths

              can you please elaborate on this? isn't there a way to accomplish this with the policy routing?

              It might work if and only if the remote system initiates the tunnels -- never the firewall with multiple WANs. Also assuming it's VTI, you could never have more than one tunnel with overlapping tunnel mode P2s work. Set all tunnels to responder only and configure the remote end to initiate. Only setup keep alives on the remote, and none locally. Even then it may only work if your WANs are properly setup for reply-to to function.

              it would be great to put this in the docs

              AFAIK that options was more about having the tunnels configured and in place so they could work one at a time, not all at once, people just didn't want to have to keep editing and changing the tunnels when they could just enable/disable them easily.

              it would be much easier to reach that goal by simply avoiding remote endpoints checks for disabled tunnels, wouldn't it?
              just found the original request: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10214. the purpose was exactly to have multiple tunnels to the same endpoints

              jimpJ J 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • jimpJ
                jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate @jazzl0ver
                last edited by

                @jazzl0ver said in Gateway duplicates usage example:

                thank you very much for the prompt reply, @jimp !

                you can't route to the same destination out multiple paths

                can you please elaborate on this? isn't there a way to accomplish this with the policy routing?

                It's as simple as what I said. You can't have multiple routes to the same remote destination out different paths like that.

                Policy routing is different, but also policy routing from the firewall itself is not as simple as it is for traffic passing through. Source address selection can give it some grief trying to find the shortest path out before PF has a chance to do anything with policy routing.

                AFAIK that options was more about having the tunnels configured and in place so they could work one at a time, not all at once, people just didn't want to have to keep editing and changing the tunnels when they could just enable/disable them easily.

                it would be much easier to reach that goal by simply avoiding remote endpoints checks for disabled tunnels, wouldn't it?

                It's not that simple.

                just found the original request: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10214. the purpose was exactly to have multiple tunnels to the same endpoints

                That original issue is so vague you can't make an assumption from the description about whether they wanted them all up/active at the same time.

                Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                Do not Chat/PM for help!

                J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J
                  jazzl0ver @jimp
                  last edited by

                  @jimp said in Gateway duplicates usage example:

                  It's as simple as what I said. You can't have multiple routes to the same remote destination out different paths like that.

                  Policy routing is different, but also policy routing from the firewall itself is not as simple as it is for traffic passing through. Source address selection can give it some grief trying to find the shortest path out before PF has a chance to do anything with policy routing.

                  Will multiple routing tables (setfib) help to workaround this?

                  jimpJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • jimpJ
                    jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate @jazzl0ver
                    last edited by

                    @jazzl0ver said in Gateway duplicates usage example:

                    Will multiple routing tables (setfib) help to workaround this?

                    No because at least on FreeBSD, last I saw, setfib works on a per-process level and it wouldn't let individual tunnels in the same process choose a different FIB.

                    Not unless there is some feature in strongSwan itself that has support for that, but that would require quite a lot of things we don't have now to support (e.g. the ability to manage multiple FIBs)

                    Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                    Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                    Do not Chat/PM for help!

                    J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J
                      jazzl0ver @jimp
                      last edited by

                      @jimp yeah, i understand setfib works on per-process basis. probably, the ipsec tunnels with gateway duplicates option enabled could be started as different processes?

                      i really don't know how rare or frequent my case is, but from the pfsense features perspective, it would be very useful to cover the described situation and multiple routing tables support sounds like a great feature not only for ipsec tunnels.
                      do you mind if I create a feature request in redmine or github?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • jimpJ
                        jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                        last edited by

                        The way IPsec works, they cannot be separate processes. It's not like OpenVPN.

                        Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                        Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                        Do not Chat/PM for help!

                        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • J
                          jazzl0ver @jimp
                          last edited by

                          @jimp thanks for your answers and patience!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • J
                            jazzl0ver @jazzl0ver
                            last edited by

                            @jazzl0ver said in Gateway duplicates usage example:

                            It might work if and only if the remote system initiates the tunnels -- never the firewall with multiple WANs. Also assuming it's VTI, you could never have more than one tunnel with overlapping tunnel mode P2s work. Set all tunnels to responder only and configure the remote end to initiate. Only setup keep alives on the remote, and none locally. Even then it may only work if your WANs are properly setup for reply-to to function.

                            Hi @jimp . I've refactored my setup and the pfsense holding multiple connections to the different remotes is now set as responder only along with no local keep alives.

                            After recent reboot, all tunnels came up but one and I still can't get it to run. After I click on Connect P1 and P2 on the remote, tcpdump shows the outbound isakmp packets on the remote and inbound isakmp packets on the local system, but nothing happens.

                            on the remote:
                            # pfctl -sa | grep aa.bb.254.42
                            ...
                            all udp xx.yy.169.90:500 -> aa.bb.254.42:500       SINGLE:NO_TRAFFIC
                            ...
                            
                            on the local:
                            # pfctl -sa | grep xx.yy.169.90 | grep aa.bb.254.42
                            #
                            

                            The only guess I have is that reply-to function was not set correctly. Can you please give me some more details on the proper reply-to configuration?

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J
                              jazzl0ver
                              last edited by

                              JFYI. I've ended up with adding two extra pfsenses (for HA) that deals with ISP channels only

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