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

    VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03

    IPsec
    5
    88
    6.6k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic was forked from 24.03 causes issue with remote VPN stephenw10
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • N
      Nikkeli @stephenw10
      last edited by

      @stephenw10
      On System/General I can actually see some errors/warnings that seem to be relevant. On other logs I could not find anything relevant.
      IPsec logging has too much log noise but I can turn that down aswell and reboot, if you think it could help.

      Here is System/General logging after booting, with the relevant lines.

      May 24 10:11:27 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:27 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:27 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:27 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: Gateway, NONE AVAILABLE
May 24 10:11:27 	syslogd 		kernel boot file is /boot/kernel/kernel
May 24 10:11:27 	syslogd 		exiting on signal 15
May 24 10:11:26 	kernel 		done.
May 24 10:11:26 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: Creating rrd update script
May 24 10:11:24 	kernel 		.done.
May 24 10:11:24 	check_reload_status 	650 	Restarting IPsec tunnels
May 24 10:11:24 	kernel 		...
May 24 10:11:15 	kernel 		done.
May 24 10:11:15 	check_reload_status 	650 	Updating all dyndns
May 24 10:11:14 	kernel 		done.
May 24 10:11:14 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: NTPD is starting up.
May 24 10:11:08 	kernel 		done.
May 24 10:11:08 	kernel 		done.
May 24 10:11:08 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: sync unbound done.
May 24 10:11:07 	kernel 		done.
May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: Gateway, NONE AVAILABLE
May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: Default gateway setting as default.
      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • O
        OhYeah 0
        last edited by

        Rebooted device, went through the logs to see if I catch something that might be relevant (Netgate 4100).

        May 24 13:53:46	php-cgi	678	rc.bootup: The command '/sbin/ifconfig 'ipsec1' inet '0.0.0.0/0' '0.0.0.0'' returned exit code '1', the output was 'ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): Destination address required'
May 24 13:53:46	php-cgi	678	rc.bootup: Gateway, NONE AVAILABLE
May 24 13:53:46	php-cgi	678	rc.bootup: Gateway, NONE AVAILABLE
May 24 13:53:46	kernel		route: message indicates error: Invalid argument
        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          Ah, there we go. Yup that's pretty much what I'd expect when trying to use 0/0. It tries to apply it to the interfaces and fails because it's invalid there.

          The interesting thing is how that ever worked in 23.09. 🤔

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • O
            OhYeah 0
            last edited by

            And these are similar messages from a Netgate 4100 running 23.09:

            May 24 19:26:59	php-cgi	466	rc.bootup: The command '/sbin/ifconfig 'ipsec2' inet '0.0.0.0/0' '0.0.0.0/0'' returned exit code '1', the output was 'ifconfig: 0.0.0.0/0: bad value'
May 24 19:26:59	php-cgi	466	rc.bootup: Gateway, NONE AVAILABLE

            The message is very slightly different, so I assume it must be meaningful in some way.

            I also got offered 24.03_1 on the same device but no release notes yet?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stephenw10S
              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
              last edited by

              Hmm, interesting. Presumably you don't see the route errors in 23.09?:

              May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1
May 24 10:11:07 	php-cgi 	685 	rc.bootup: route_add_or_change: Invalid gateway and/or network interface ipsec1

              The patch 1 update is a no-op for amd64 devices. It applies only to aarch64. It won't change anything here.

              O 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • O
                OhYeah 0 @stephenw10
                last edited by

                @stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

                Hmm, interesting. Presumably you don't see the route errors in 23.09?

                Nope, didn't see any..

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • O
                  OhYeah 0 @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  This post is deleted!
                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • O
                    OhYeah 0
                    last edited by

                    Any news from devs regarding this issue? Well actually two issues I guess.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • stephenw10S
                      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                      last edited by

                      Not yet. In all honesty it's pretty low priority because VTI / Static routes are working as intended in 24.03. Using 0/0 for both ends of the tunnel subnet was never a supported setup.

                      It is curious that is changed though.

                      The issue with disabled gateways causing a problem is a bigger issue since that happens in the expected config. Updates there should be shown on the bug report: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15449

                      O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • O
                        OhYeah 0 @stephenw10
                        last edited by

                        @stephenw10 said in VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03:

                        In all honesty it's pretty low priority because VTI / Static routes are working as intended in 24.03. Using 0/0 for both ends of the tunnel subnet was never a supported setup.

                        😢 Like I said, this was the only setup that worked across multiple platforms and it worked exceptionally well... until 24.03 that is. I really hope this gets sorted out, otherwise it's a massive headache for us.

                        Any chances these two issues are related somehow since they occurred at the same time?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M
                          marcosm Netgate
                          last edited by

                          I've added a patch to the redmine that should fix the issue:
                          https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15449

                          Note that while it's valid for the routing to work for an interface regardless of its IP, the strongswan docs seem to indicate that a point-to-point link with specific local/remote addresses is expected. The IPsec P2 configuration in pfSense uses the local and remote fields to build the interface, and "0.0.0.0/0,::/0" is added on top as part of the traffic selectors. We do not recommend nor support using 0/0 as the interface address.

                          LarryFahnoeL N O 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                          • LarryFahnoeL
                            LarryFahnoe @marcosm
                            last edited by

                            @marcosm I just applied the patch to my 2 4200 systems and then rebooted. The static route was added at boot and traffic passes as expected without having to wait for rc.newwanip to trigger the route to get loaded about 15 minutes after the reboot. Many thanks!!

                            --Larry

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • N
                              Nikkeli @marcosm
                              last edited by

                              @marcosm
                              Thanks, this fixed the static routes not being applied from boot for me aswell. I did not have 0/0 address in IPSec, just VTI IPsec and static routes.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                              • O
                                OhYeah 0 @marcosm
                                last edited by

                                @marcosm said in VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03:

                                Note that while it's valid for the routing to work for an interface regardless of its IP, the strongswan docs seem to indicate that a point-to-point link with specific local/remote addresses is expected.

                                I applied the patch on a non-production Netgate 4100 and sadly I have to say it did not fix the problem with my 0/0 setup. I was tinkering around with various config settings but so far no luck.

                                Any idea why it was working before in earlier versions?

                                M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • M
                                  marcosm Netgate @OhYeah 0
                                  last edited by marcosm

                                  @OhYeah-0 I haven't looked into that specifically, but my guess is it's related to the error shown on https://forum.netgate.com/post/1170859

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • O
                                    OhYeah 0
                                    last edited by

                                    It was mentioned before that looking into this issue wasn't "a priority", but will it investigated at a later date?

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • stephenw10S
                                      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                      last edited by

                                      I can try to look at it later this week if I have time. The problem is that I wouldn't have expected that to work in 23.09. That fact it did could be seen as a bug that is now fixed.

                                      It's unlikely we would add back code to allow it if that is the case as that's an unsupported config.

                                      It might be a trivial fix though once we understand how it was working in 23.09.

                                      O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • O
                                        OhYeah 0 @stephenw10
                                        last edited by

                                        @stephenw10 said in VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03:

                                        I can try to look at it later this week if I have time. The problem is that I wouldn't have expected that to work in 23.09. That fact it did could be seen as a bug that is now fixed.

                                        1. Thank you in advance for at least taking a look at the problem.
                                        2. I hope there is a simple fix/change available. Like I said, this functionality has performed extremely well for 1+ years with multiple clients in mixed vendor/platform environments.

                                        PS. The functionality worked throughout the 23.xx branch as far as I recall, haven't tested it with earlier versions.

                                        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          marcosm Netgate @OhYeah 0
                                          last edited by marcosm

                                          @OhYeah-0 What exactly are you trying to achieve?

                                          Presumably the goal is to allow any IP to pass through the tunnel, and control what gets sent through the tunnel via static routes. For the "allow" part, that's done implicitly by the system with the traffic selectors "0.0.0.0/0,::/0". This is what IPsec uses to establish the P2. As mentioned, the local/remote address you enter in the VTI tunnel's P2 GUI is used to build the interface and gateway. Putting validity aside, let's use 0.0.0.0/0 as an example. This would tell the system:
                                          route 10.1.1.0/24 through 0.0.0.0 via interface ipsec1

                                          The part route 10.1.1.0/24 through 0.0.0.0 would effectively mean "use the default route for 10.1.1.0/24" which would already happen simply by having a default route. There's the additional part via interface ipsec1 which would override the default route's interface and effectively mean "send traffic destined to 10.1.1.0/24 through the interface ipsec1". Hence the address "0.0.0.0" is effectively ignored and the resulting behavior would be "send 10.1.1.0/24 through the tunnel; if the tunnel is down, send 10.1.1.0/24 through the default route instead".

                                          Since the GUI doesn't currently support routing via an interface without an address (i.e. a gateway requires an address), then 0.0.0.0 can't be used. By simply changing the P2 local address to something not used anywhere else in the system (e.g. an APIPA address like 169.254.254.1), the resulting behavior remains the same while also being a supported configuration.

                                          O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                          • O
                                            OhYeah 0 @marcosm
                                            last edited by

                                            @marcosm said in VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03:

                                            @OhYeah-0 What exactly are you trying to achieve?

                                            Presumably the goal is to allow any IP to pass through the tunnel, and control what gets sent through the tunnel via static routes. For the "allow" part, that's done implicitly by the system with the traffic selectors "0.0.0.0/0,::/0". This is what IPsec uses to establish the P2. As mentioned, the local/remote address you enter in the VTI tunnel's P2 GUI is used to build the interface and gateway. Putting validity aside, let's use 0.0.0.0/0 as an example. This would tell the system:
                                            route 10.1.1.0/24 through 0.0.0.0 via interface ipsec1

                                            Since the GUI doesn't currently support routing via an interface without an address (i.e. a gateway requires an address), then 0.0.0.0 can't be used. By simply changing the P2 local address to something not used anywhere else in the system (e.g. an APIPA address like 169.254.254.1), the resulting behavior remains the same while also being a supported configuration.

                                            I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that setting the destination network to 0.0.0.0/0 is essentially saying "anything is allowed to be routed to that tunnel if an appropriate static route exist in the system routing table". In essence:

                                            route 10.1.1.0/24 through 0.0.0.0 via interface ipsec1 (through 0.0.0.0 part seems superfluous)

                                            The last paragraph is somewhat confusing to me from a system standpoint, since 169.254.0.0 networks are reserved for Windows OS devices unable to obtain an address. Both are unroutable networks but here 169.254.0.0 has a much more specific context while 0.0.0.0 is merely a placeholder saying "check system routing table".

                                            Again, I apologize if I have gravely misunderstood some concepts.

                                            M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post