VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03
-
@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
Right so via the link directly.
Hmm, so you've uncovered a new wrinkle, but I wonder if that might be due to @OhYeah-0 using the 0.0.0.0/0?
I have yet to roll back to 23.09.1 and look at how the route was loaded. I would assume however that since I am using a /30 transit network, the route would be via the gateway IP I provided; not sure if an interface route would make sense if the user provides a gateway IP.
Under 24.03 I did just add the route via the link & traffic passes as expected.
# route del -net 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.8.2 del net 192.168.3.0: gateway 192.168.8.2 # # route add -net 192.168.3.0/24 -interface ipsec1 add net 192.168.3.0: gateway ipsec1 # # netstat -rn4 Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire 127.0.0.1 link#6 UH lo0 192.168.0.2 link#6 UH lo0 192.168.3.0/24 link#9 US ipsec1 192.168.5.0/24 link#3 U igc2 192.168.5.1 link#6 UHS lo0 192.168.8.1 link#6 UHS lo0 192.168.8.2 link#9 UH ipsec1 192.168.10.1 link#6 UH lo0--Larry
-
Ok one thing to try here is editing and saving the VTI gateway in Sys > Routing > Gateways.
Do that creates an entry for it in the config which can change it's behaviour, espeically at boot.
-
@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
Ok one thing to try here is editing and saving the VTI gateway in Sys > Routing > Gateways.
Do that creates an entry for it in the config which can change it's behaviour, espeically at boot.
Hmm, you're shedding light here Stephen, thank you. Before making further changes I looked more carefully at the config.
First off, while I am using a /30 transit network and routing via the gateway IP address, the config suggests it probably ought to be via the link since it does not record the IP:
<staticroutes> <route> <network>192.168.3.0/24</network> <gateway>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</gateway> <descr><![CDATA[Alex LAN]]></descr> </route> </staticroutes>Next, while I only see 2 gateways in the GUI, there are 3 defined in the config. The MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 gateway is defined twice, once as dynamic, and again with the transit net IP:
<gateways> <gateway_item> <interface>wan</interface> <gateway>dynamic</gateway> <name>WAN_DHCP</name> <weight>1</weight> <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol> <interval>1000</interval> <descr><![CDATA[Via Quantum Fiber C5500XK]]></descr> <action_disable></action_disable> <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states> </gateway_item> <gateway_item> <interface>opt3</interface> <gateway>192.168.8.2</gateway> <name>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</name> <weight>1</weight> <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol> <descr><![CDATA[Interface MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 Gateway]]></descr> <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states> </gateway_item> <gateway_item> <interface>opt3</interface> <gateway>dynamic</gateway> <name>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</name> <weight>1</weight> <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol> <interval>1000</interval> <descr><![CDATA[Interface MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 Gateway]]></descr> <action_disable></action_disable> <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states> </gateway_item> <defaultgw4>WAN_DHCP</defaultgw4> <defaultgw6></defaultgw6> </gateways>I do not have enough experience with pfSense to know what is normal.
Now, to your point about editing and saving the VTI gateway.
- Delete static route via MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
- Edit gateway MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 (no change), save
- Add static route via MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
The gateways and staticroutes config sections remain the same. I'll reboot & expect the same 15 min delay before rc.newwanip triggers the route to be loaded.
Next test is to delete the static route AND the VTI gateway, then recreate both...
--Larry
-
Huh, that is interesting. Did you perhaps add a gateway manually as well as the dynamic gateway?
In a test instance here I only see the dynamic gateway. However static roots are added and are shown via the real gateway address:
[24.03-RELEASE][admin@5100.stevew.lan]/root: netstat -rn4 Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire default 172.21.16.1 UGS igb0 10.52.52.1 link#8 UHS lo0 10.52.52.2 link#19 UH ipsec3 10.86.8.0/24 link#21 U ovpns1 10.86.8.1 link#8 UHS lo0 10.110.20.0/26 link#11 U tun_wg0 10.110.20.10 link#8 UHS lo0 127.0.0.1 link#8 UH lo0 172.21.16.0/24 link#1 U igb0 172.21.16.1 link#1 UHS igb0 172.21.16.21 link#8 UHS lo0 172.21.16.149 172.21.16.1 UGHS igb0 172.21.16.186 172.21.16.1 UGHS igb0 192.168.21.0/24 link#2 U igb1 192.168.21.1 link#8 UHS lo0 192.168.21.5 link#8 UHS lo0 192.168.144.0/24 10.52.52.2 UGS ipsec3 192.168.221.0/24 link#14 U lagg0 192.168.221.1 link#8 UHS lo0 -
@stephenw10 After quite a bit more testing, I have narrowed the missing static route problem down to the non-dynamic <gateway_item> shown above. The real puzzler is that rolling back to 23.09.1 (BE right before the upgrade), I only have the two dynamic <gateway_items>. <staticroutes> are the same.
23.09.1 pre-upgrade:
<staticroutes> <route> <network>192.168.3.0/24</network> <gateway>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</gateway> <descr><![CDATA[Alex LAN]]></descr> </route> </staticroutes><gateways> <gateway_item> <interface>opt3</interface> <gateway>dynamic</gateway> <name>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</name> <weight>1</weight> <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol> <descr><![CDATA[Interface MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 Gateway]]></descr> <monitor_disable></monitor_disable> <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states> </gateway_item> <gateway_item> <interface>wan</interface> <gateway>dynamic</gateway> <name>WAN_DHCP</name> <weight>1</weight> <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol> <interval>1000</interval> <descr><![CDATA[Via Quantum Fiber C5500XK]]></descr> <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states> </gateway_item> <defaultgw4>WAN_DHCP</defaultgw4> <defaultgw6></defaultgw6> </gateways>To clean up the errant <gateway_item> required tearing down and rebuilding much of the config:
- Delete static route to 192.168.3.0/24 via MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
- Delete MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 interface assignment
- Disable IPsec P1 and P2
- Delete gateway MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
[ Gateway was grayed out (Gateway inactive, interface is missing) before attempting to delete and remains in this state after attempting to delete ] - Delete the IPsec P2
- Delete the gateway MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
[ Gateway is deleted and deleted from config.xml ] - Recreate IPsec P2
- Enable IPsec P1 and P2
- Add interface ipsec1
- Enable interface OPT3 (skip renaming to MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4)
- OPT3_VTIV4 gateway is created automatically
- Add static route to 192.168.3.0/24 via OPT3_VTIV4
- Add the OPT3 rules for site to site traffic and gateway monitoring
- Reboot
Did this on both of my systems and they are both rebooting cleanly with the IPsec VTI coming up and passing traffic immediately.
I will add this update to the redmine, but it still does not explain where the non-dynamic <gateway_item> came from, and I'm not sure it addresses the problem that @OhYeah-0 is seeing.
--Larry
-
Nice troubleshooting.
Hmm, so the bug is potentially that an additional gateway is created at upgrade.
I'll try to find any other instances. I'd expect to see quite a few if so.
-
@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
Hmm, so the bug is potentially that an additional gateway is created at upgrade.
I'm quite curious now as to the root cause & will look forward to hearing if you uncover more. Will also be interesting to see what @OhYeah-0 finds.
--Larry
-
@LarryFahnoe said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
Will also be interesting to see what @OhYeah-0 finds.
Well this doesn't move us closer to a solution.. I have only 2 gateways defined in the config file.
<gateways> <gateway_item> <interface>wan</interface> <gateway>xxx.xx.xxx.xx</gateway> <name>WANGW</name> <weight>1</weight> <descr><![CDATA[WAN Gateway]]></descr> <defaultgw></defaultgw> </gateway_item> <gateway_item> <interface>opt5</interface> <gateway>dynamic</gateway> <name>IPSEC_SWE_GW</name> <weight>1</weight> <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol> <descr><![CDATA[Test description]]></descr> <monitor_disable></monitor_disable> <action_disable></action_disable> <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states> </gateway_item>The problem is that I cannot remember if I performed the upgrade before I created the IPSEC tunnel or not.
-
Tried something a bit more drastic.
- Deleted everything: static routes, gateway, disabled interface, deleted assignment, deleted P2, deleted P1.
- Restart.
- Switch global states back to "floating" and IPSEC filter mode back to "on IPSEC tab".
- Restart.
- Add everything back in the same order as standard (but different names just to make sure something doesn't clash with cached or old entries).
- Restart.
Same status. P1 comes up, routes are not added to the routing table.
-
@OhYeah-0 And when you rebuilt, you did so with 0.0.0.0/0 correct? The rationale for that was a mixed environment if I understood.
Would it be possible to do a test using a private /30 transit network?
--Larry
-
@LarryFahnoe said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
And when you rebuilt, you did so with 0.0.0.0/0 correct? The rationale for that was a mixed environment if I understood.
Yep. With that client we have a hub-and-spoke topology with different vendor platforms (also mix of virtual and physical instances). The solution had been working flawlessly until the 24.03 update.
-
Ok so some of the connected clients are using policy mode and require a P2 that carries all destination traffic?
-
@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
Ok so some of the connected clients are using policy mode and require a P2 that carries all destination traffic?
All endpoints are connected via the same method (0.0.0.0/0 local/remote and static routes).
I know that while it's possible to mix policy and route based IPSEC; it's really not a good idea. You lose all the benefits and there's another source of potential problems.
-
Right, I agree with that. So these are all route mode devices the tunnels are connected to? In which case why are you using 0/0 for the P2s?
-
@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
So these are all route mode devices the tunnels are connected to? In which case why are you using 0/0 for the P2s?
Yes, all the spokes are connected to the hub via 0/0. Except for end-user remote access VPN which is a separate virtual network and then routed to the hub via parent router LAN/IPSEC (Fortinet because it offers 365/Entra integration).
As to why use 0/0 for P2s... tried it out with pfsense and a couple of ISPs/partners and found out it works incredibly well across multiple platforms.
If that mode of VPN setup is suddenly not supported anymore, I would like to hear the reasoning behind this change. At the moment it sounds more like a bug. :)
-
Hmm, curious. The only time I've ever seen that is when one side of the tunnel is using policy mode. Otherwise having a local interface defined as 0/0 could potentially break routing entirely.
However I'm not aware of any specific change in 24.03 that would prevent it if it worked in 23.09. It's unlikely a setup like that was ever tested though. Let me see what I can find....
-
@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:
However I'm not aware of any specific change in 24.03 that would prevent it if it worked in 23.09. It's unlikely a setup like that was ever tested though.
I can provide also some logs/data from routers that are running 23.09, if it would help to figure out what actually changed.
-
I'm also having problems with static routes not being loaded on boot.
However they get loaded after editing and saving routes (without changes), after which the tunnel works as intended.I have IPsec VTI with local/remote networks set to "address".
Issue appeared after upgrade from 23.09.1 with no changes to configuration between upgrades.I can post more information if needed.
-
Maybe it's also a good idea to change the title of the topic to include the phrase "static routes"?
-
@Nikkeli Your situation sounds a lot like mine.
Might be interesting to take a peek at your /cf/conf/config.xml and compare it to what I showed above in https://forum.netgate.com/post/1170175
Do you have a spurious <gateway_item> with a <gateway> containing an address rather than "dynamic"?
I have on my "spare time list" (ahem!) to roll back to 23.09.1, then do the upgrade again and document how the config changes. I suspect there is a bug in the upgrade process.
@stephenw10 I'd vote for adding "static routes" to the title of this thread if possible.
--Larry
