Updating to pfSense+ 24.3 breaks routing - kernel routes now gone
-
-
@marcosm I just tested in my production simulation lab and all looks good. I'll update the actual production firewall this weekend. This is a great result - thanks so much for your efforts - it's really appreciated.
-
@marcosm Will this be coming to 24.08.a.20240702.0600? I am running this and the package listed does not seem to work and i am still having the same issue. I have not seen any updated packages.
-
@mAineAc No - you'd have to build/install it manually for the public dev build. I'm not aware of any official bug report for the issue you're experiencing. My suggestion is to treat it like any other bug report: provide steps to reproduce it, and determine if it's a regression by finding the version(s) of the related software when it last worked.
-
I just following up on this. We tried to upgrading from PFS 22.05/FRR 7.5.1 to PFS 24.11/FRR 9.1.2
We found that traffic was spotting and simply wouldn't route properly. If we turn down one of the 2 peers traffic would work perfectly. but as long as both peers were up traffic was spotty and would drop.
We would like to stick with a netgate router but at this point we are looking to switch over to a cisco asr instead.
22.05 would be fine for us to stay on but unfortunately we can't downgrade a router and install the older frr anymore due to a php error.
-
@Kevin-S-Pare Out of curiosity, do you have a high level diagram of how the pfsense is routing? Is a pfsense box with 2x upstream peers terminated on the same firewall? Is this OSPF or BGP?
-
You got it. two peers advertising 2 /24's with bgp. Nothing fancy and quite basic.
-
@Kevin-S-Pare Yeah pretty basic i agree.
So when you advertise your routes to both peers, what happens? I take it your upstream imports the routes and sends it out to their peers.
What specifically is happening? So say you have Upstream1 and Upstream2. You are advertising your routes to both Upstreams and return traffic comes back on Upstream2 (don't know how you are steering traffic into your AS). What is spotty? -
@michmoor what ends up happening is traffic is either not going out or not getting back. trace routes show as ok so do ping but when we try to get out to websites only certain ones work. and will work for a period and then the route is lost and we are unable to hit a site again.
I was upgrading from an HP server to a netgate 8200 so we just went back to the old box and all works perfectly fine.
heres a cleansed version of my config.
##################### DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE! ######################
###################################################################This file was created by an automatic configuration generator.
The contents of this file will be overwritten without warning!
###################################################################
!
frr defaults traditional
hostname hostname
password password
ip nht resolve-via-default
service integrated-vtysh-config
!
router bgp 3
bgp log-neighbor-changes
bgp router-id 192.168.1.2
no bgp network import-check
bgp deterministic-med
bgp always-compare-med
bgp bestpath as-path multipath-relax
neighbor 192.168.1.1 remote-as 1
neighbor 192.168.1.1 description Peer1
neighbor 192.168.1.1 timers 20 60
neighbor 192.168.2.1 remote-as 2
neighbor 192.168.2.1 description Peer2
neighbor 192.168.2.1 timers 20 90
!
address-family ipv4 unicast
network 192.168.10.0/24
network 192.168.11.0/24
neighbor 192.168.1.1 activate
neighbor 192.168.2.1 activate
no neighbor 192.168.1.1 send-community
neighbor 192.168.1.1 next-hop-self
neighbor 192.168.1.1 prefix-list PEER1-IN in
neighbor 192.168.1.1 prefix-list PEER1-OUT out
no neighbor 192.168.2.1 send-community
neighbor 192.168.2.1 next-hop-self
neighbor 192.168.2.1 prefix-list PEER2-IN in
neighbor 192.168.2.1 prefix-list PEER2-OUT out
exit-address-family
!
!
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 10 deny 0.0.0.0/8 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 20 deny 10.0.0.0/8 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 30 deny 127.0.0.0/8 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 40 deny 169.254.0.0/16 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 50 deny 172.16.0.0/12 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 60 deny 192.0.0.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 70 deny 192.0.2.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 80 deny 192.168.0.0/16 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 90 deny 198.18.0.0/15 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 100 deny 198.51.100.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 110 deny 203.0.113.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 120 deny 224.0.0.0/4 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-IN seq 130 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER1-OUT seq 10 permit 192.168.10.0/24
ip prefix-list PEER1-OUT seq 11 permit 192.168.11.0/24
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 10 deny 0.0.0.0/8 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 20 deny 10.0.0.0/8 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 30 deny 127.0.0.0/8 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 40 deny 169.254.0.0/16 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 50 deny 172.16.0.0/12 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 60 deny 192.0.0.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 70 deny 192.0.2.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 80 deny 192.168.0.0/16 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 90 deny 198.18.0.0/15 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 100 deny 198.51.100.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 110 deny 203.0.113.0/24 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 120 deny 224.0.0.0/4 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-IN seq 130 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
ip prefix-list PEER2-OUT seq 10 permit 192.168.11.0/24
ip prefix-list PEER2-OUT seq 11 permit 192.168.10.0/24
!
route-map ALLOW-ALL permit 100
!
line vty
! -
Nothing offensive in the config.
I don't know why you have bgp always-compare-med and bgp-determinstic-med configured at the same time.. If you are using MED to influence outbound routing then you should pick one option.Based on the fact that you stated traceroutes and pings work out to the internet than we know that routing is good.
I do know there were behavorial changes to pfsense after 22.05 namely state policy changes.https://www.netgate.com/blog/state-policy-default-change#:~:text=State%20Policy%20Options&text=As%20pfSense%20software%20is%20security,the%20system%20default%20State%20Policy
I have a sneaky suspicion you are running into this. I can see it happening if traffic leaves Upstream1 and comes back on Upstream2.
If i were you i would change to Floating state policy and perform your tests. It really seems you are hitting this behavior change.
-
@michmoor said in Updating to pfSense+ 24.3 breaks routing - kernel routes now gone:
https://www.netgate.com/blog/state-policy-default-change#:~:text=State%20Policy%20Options&text=As%20pfSense%20software%20is%20security,the%20system%20default%20State%20Policy
Interesting idea. I'll give that a try tonight! theres some pretty solid logic there.
I'll do some more reading on the MED options.
I did my bgp back when I did my ccna, ccnp and ccdp....so kinda brushing off the cobwebs lol
-
@michmoor said in Updating to pfSense+ 24.3 breaks routing - kernel routes now gone:
Nothing offensive in the config.
I don't know why you have bgp always-compare-med and bgp-determinstic-med configured at the same time.. If you are using MED to influence outbound routing then you should pick one option.Based on the fact that you stated traceroutes and pings work out to the internet than we know that routing is good.
I do know there were behavorial changes to pfsense after 22.05 namely state policy changes.https://www.netgate.com/blog/state-policy-default-change#:~:text=State%20Policy%20Options&text=As%20pfSense%20software%20is%20security,the%20system%20default%20State%20Policy
I have a sneaky suspicion you are running into this. I can see it happening if traffic leaves Upstream1 and comes back on Upstream2.
If i were you i would change to Floating state policy and perform your tests. It really seems you are hitting this behavior change.
for MED and Best path selection, being that these are both internet peers, will either of these options really have any impact on outgoing traffic? We only have one router, and it seems these settings are more for configs with multiple local routers connecting to internet peers?
-
@Kevin-S-Pare
MED is so far down the BGP path selection, realistically, i would be surprised if its used by the firewall to make a path decision. I have seen it used within an enterprise with multiple colocation sites. -
@michmoor thats kinda what im seeing too. multi exit relax I looked at as well, but even then doesn't seem like its going to do much with only 2 peers
-
@michmoor said in Updating to pfSense+ 24.3 breaks routing - kernel routes now gone:
Nothing offensive in the config.
I don't know why you have bgp always-compare-med and bgp-determinstic-med configured at the same time.. If you are using MED to influence outbound routing then you should pick one option.Based on the fact that you stated traceroutes and pings work out to the internet than we know that routing is good.
I do know there were behavorial changes to pfsense after 22.05 namely state policy changes.https://www.netgate.com/blog/state-policy-default-change#:~:text=State%20Policy%20Options&text=As%20pfSense%20software%20is%20security,the%20system%20default%20State%20Policy
I have a sneaky suspicion you are running into this. I can see it happening if traffic leaves Upstream1 and comes back on Upstream2.
If i were you i would change to Floating state policy and perform your tests. It really seems you are hitting this behavior change.
Changing to the floating states worked! Thank you!