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

    High Avail secondary node IPs - How to find it

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    45 Posts 4 Posters 2.3k 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.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      Check the logs at both ends and see what's happening. Which end is delaying the failover.

      How long does it actually take?

      M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • M
        michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @stephenw10
        last edited by michmoor

        @stephenw10
        I initiated a failover on primary and on the secondary i went ahead and tried to establish a tunnel via CLI.

        This is the output. The output is from the Backup pfsense trying to initiate a IKE P1 to my home pfsense

         sudo swanctl --initiate --ike con1
        [IKE] retransmit 1 of request with message ID 0
        [NET] sending packet: from 192.168.35.6[500] to 104.13.92.x[500] (464 bytes)
        [IKE] retransmit 2 of request with message ID 0
        [NET] sending packet: from 192.168.35.6[500] to 104.13.92.x[500] (464 bytes)
        [IKE] retransmit 3 of request with message ID 0
        [NET] sending packet: from 192.168.35.6[500] to 104.13.92.x[500] (464 bytes)
        [IKE] retransmit 4 of request with message ID 0
        [NET] sending packet: from 192.168.35.6[500] to 104.13.92.x[500] (464 bytes)
        [IKE] retransmit 5 of request with message ID 0
        [NET] sending packet: from 192.168.35.6[500] to 104.13.92.x[500] (464 bytes)
        [IKE] giving up after 5 retransmits
        [IKE] establishing IKE_SA failed, peer not responding
        initiate failed: establishing IKE_SA 'con1' failed
        
        

        Now just to let you know firewall at the location I'm managing is sitting behind a Cisco router that is performing NAT
        192.168.35.6 is the NAT for the WAN VIP so the pfsense has a RFC1918 WAN address but the Cisco is doing the NAT.
        For what its worth i do see translations on the Cisco so that's operating correctly.

        Eventually the tunnel will restablish.

        Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
        Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
        Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
        Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
        JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

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

          So 192.168.35.6 is the WAN CARP VIP for the HA pair? You shouldn't have to do anything at the CLI. When the VIP fails over the secondary should try to connect.

          What is logged on the other side?

          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @stephenw10
            last edited by

            @stephenw10
            So for clarity

            The NATs are like this

            192.168.35.6 <> x.x.188.125 - CARP VIP
            192.168.35.5 <> x.x.188.124 - Secondary WAN pfsense
            192.168.35.4 <> x.x.188.123 - Primary WAN pfsense

            So when I failover to backup what i see on my firewall is UDP/500 traffic coming from the Secondary WAN interface (not the CARP) which i found odd. I see that happening for a few times and then after awhile i see the CARP VIP finally reach out and establish a VPN

            Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
            Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
            Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
            Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
            JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

            M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @michmoor
              last edited by michmoor

              @stephenw10
              I think i figured out the problem.
              The firewall is behind a NAT box
              When i initiate a P1 connection its trying to talk out on port 500.

              Obviously, this breaks IKE all together as after the translation, IKE drops packets.

              NAT-T is set to Force. Yet its still trying to go out on port 500.
              Any ideas as to why its doing that?

              I have also restarted the IPsec daemon process but same results.

              edit

              Confirmed. This is for sure happening. On the Cisco i see the translations, Its trying on port 500 even though NAT-T is set to Force

              udp 103.127.188.124:20402 192.168.35.5:20402 x.x.92.128:500 x.x.92.128:500

              Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
              Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
              Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
              Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
              JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

              M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @michmoor
                last edited by

                @stephenw10

                Ok...what a marathon day with IPsec.

                I think i figured out the problem and now failover happens faster.

                There was an Outbound NAT policy that said
                Interface: WAN
                Source: Any
                Destination: Any
                Nat Address: 'CARP WAN Address'

                That seemed incorrect because my assumption is that any source address would include the firewall source address as well.
                So i changed the source to 'LAN subnets' and things are looking much better.

                Failover is quicker but i do find that in some cases i have to hop onto thee new Master firewall and initiate P1/P2 (it doesn't initiate right away sometimes).

                Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

                V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • V
                  viragomann @michmoor
                  last edited by viragomann

                  @michmoor said in High Avail secondary node IPs - How to find it:

                  There was an Outbound NAT policy that said
                  Interface: WAN
                  Source: Any
                  Destination: Any
                  Nat Address: 'CARP WAN Address'

                  That seemed incorrect because my assumption is that any source address would include the firewall source address as well.

                  That's correct. Outbound traffic from the firewall itself must not be natted to the CARP VIP.

                  If you have multiple local subnets and want to use any for the source you can override the default outbound NAT rule by additional ones for the firewall itself at the top of the rule set:

                  6037f6d5-0d87-42d0-93ca-2933acedacca-grafik.png

                  Also remember, that connections to port 500 must keep the port static.

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

                    Yup, that^.

                    Outbound NAT rules should almost never use source 'any'. Always define the subnets you actually need translation from to avoid over matching. IPSec is most commonly broken by that but other things can be.

                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10
                      So on my firewall, i have the following SNAT rules. Do i need to create one for NAT-T as shown in your picture @viragomann

                      03d022a1-0989-43da-9b60-7163cb14630f-image.png

                      Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                      Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                      Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                      Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                      JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

                      V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • V
                        viragomann @michmoor
                        last edited by

                        @michmoor
                        No, if you don't have a manual rule natting to any other IP than WAN address (e.g. CARP), you don't need a specific rule for IPSec NAT-T.
                        However, I assumed, we were talking about a CARP setup.

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

                          But I would set a source for that manual rule over the VPN so it can never over-match traffic that shouldn't be NAT'd.

                          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @viragomann
                            last edited by

                            @viragomann Sorry i sent a screen shot of my own pfsense not in HA mode but i wanted to ensure i didn't need to do any SNAT rules here

                            Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                            Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                            Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                            Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                            JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

                            V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • M
                              michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @stephenw10
                              last edited by

                              @stephenw10
                              So you mean for source address use the WAN interface?

                              Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                              Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                              Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                              Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                              JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

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

                                Nope the source should be the subnet (or subnets) that need to be translated to the VPN address. So whatever internet subnet(s) you;re routing over the VPN.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • V
                                  viragomann @michmoor
                                  last edited by

                                  @michmoor said in High Avail secondary node IPs - How to find it:

                                  @viragomann Sorry i sent a screen shot of my own pfsense not in HA mode but i wanted to ensure i didn't need to do any SNAT rules here

                                  In a CARP set up you might have an outbound NAT rule in place, natting the source address to the CARP VIP. Maybe your outbound NAT is also in manual mode, not hybrid.
                                  In this case you need an additional rule for pfSense itself as shown in my screenshot above. But it would be sufficient to have the last one of these if you don't need ISAKMP (NAT-T doesn't use it, as far as I know).
                                  And the NAT-T rule in my screen is due to using a specific outbound IP.

                                  @stephenw10 said in High Avail secondary node IPs - How to find it:

                                  Nope the source should be the subnet (or subnets) that need to be translated to the VPN address.

                                  Hint: you can also state an alias here by selecting "Network" and entering the network alias with a /32 mask.

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M
                                    michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @viragomann
                                    last edited by

                                    @viragomann @stephenw10

                                    I appreciate you folk working with me on this thread. I think i ironed out all the issues and/or misunderstandings i was having here.

                                    Appreciate yall !

                                    Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                                    Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                                    Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                                    Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                                    JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

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