Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges
-
@Patch said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
At least 1 FQDN is required in each IP_set to trigger the error.
This is definitely something. It's regarding this exact functionality, from which anything I've attempted to offer this thread stems.
@Patch said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
I can configure my systems to keep hierarchical aliases small
[Emphasis added.]
I believe what you mean to reference here (and I may be wrong but I think I follow what you're saying)—is more precisely technically referred to as nested aliases. Nested anything—unless prescribed as an absolutely necessary means to accomplish a very particular and limited end—makes anti-kludge warriors and veterans everywhere shudder at the mere idea.
Would you be willing to share more about your specific use case of nested aliases?
-
@SteveITS What, pray tell, is a "partially filled alias"?
-
@tinfoilmatt said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
What, pray tell, is a "partially filled alias"?
OP says they are not filling completely:
@Patch said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
IP_set1 : host type, 50 IPv4 hosts (/32) and at least 1 FQDN
IP_set2 : host type, 512 IPv4 hosts (/32) and at least 1 FQDN
IP_set3 : host type, 50 IPv4 hosts (/32) and at least 1 FQDNDiagnostic -> tables -> records: Combined_IP = 256, IP_set1=50, IP_set2=206, IP_set3=0
...should have
612615, has 256. Which seems like a suspiciously specific number, tbh.Only install packages for your version, or risk breaking it. Select your branch in System/Update/Update Settings.
When upgrading, allow 10-15 minutes to reboot, or more depending on packages, CPU, and/or disk speed.
Upvote 👍 helpful posts! -
@SteveITS said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
OP says they are not filling completely:
An alias either is, or is not. When alias creation fails it's either due to parser logic error and/or a user input error. I thought we'd establised the latter as an errant space.
-
@SteveITS Doing that math also, it would seem that there's an error—not necessarily a software bug—somewhere in there, sure.
Parsing of "IP_set1" has most likely invalidated the FQDN for some reason (is the conclusion requring the least number of assumpions at least). And now all bets are off with the remaining two, and then of course with the "Combined_IP" nested alias too.
If I was being paid to resolve this on behalf of a client, I would establish the end goal intent—and then blow everything out and start over.
-
A partially populate table is probably a better description here. That's what I saw when I hit it temporarily.
Entering an range of IP addresses as a single line in a host alias is a valid entry. For example:
192.168.1.26-192.168.1.58What's not expected is multiple subnets as a single line in a host alias like:
192.168.10.0/24 192.168.48.0/24. That's not a range.But it looks to be possible to hit this using only valid host aliases. There is a bug here IMO it just needs better defining to fix. Working on it....
-
@stephenw10 said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
That's what I saw when I hit it temporarily.
Were/are these the relevant steps?
- Create an Alias (host type).
- Add a FQDN and two /24 networks one of which includes [one of] the FQDN IPv4 address.
- Save and apply.
- Look at the filter reload screen,
- When complete look at the created table for the Alias.
-
@tinfoilmatt There were steps above...https://forum.netgate.com/topic/199152/unexpected-alias-behaviour-two-ranges/26
As I understood it (if I followed) some additional key details were:
- all child_aliases to be put in the parent_alias needed 1 FQDN, to trigger this
- then restore the new configuration (or reboot?)
The restore of course reboots. As I understand the report, it is a latent problem until the reboot when the alias was no longer fully populated.
A general usage example (not tested here but used in my other thread), we have an alias that has aliases containing IPs of our clients as well as various dynamic DNS IPs. Obviously we don't want to set up the same rules for each so a nested alias makes sense.
-
@SteveITS This thread is lacking in coherent, reproducible steps which demonstrate anything. Not picking on you as you're not OP. But Stephen most recently reaffirms that, at one point, he was able to do—something. In this post he referred to it as "case 2".
That's what I'm wanting to try to recreate for myself.
-
@SteveITS said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
I am curious, does it matter where the FQDN is, in your alias? Does it stop updating the alias after the FQDN, if it is listed first or last?
Starting from https://forum.netgate.com/post/1229337
In practice I have entered a FQDN then many actual IPv4 addresses. I have mostly used a fixed prefix such as 201 or 202 or 203 (using a different number for each IP_set alias consists almost) followed by random numbers (0-255). It is far easier to add sequential IPv4 addresses but I was unsure what optimisation pfsense does so avoided that.These IP_sets are then combined in Combined_IP alias (nested / hierarchical)
The bug is revealed on full alias rebuild. In testing I used a configuration restore to ensure repeatability and clear starting point. Restarting pfsense has trigger it in my active systems.
Using 3 IP_sets containing 50, 512, 50 IP addresses,
for me it happens every time within a 30 sec of pfsense starting up. Smaller IP_set sizes can fail less cleanly. Tested with a clean install pfsense v2.81 and v2.72.@SteveITS said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
...should have 612 615, has 256. Which seems like a suspiciously specific number, tbh
I agree that's a suspicious number but if I use 2 IP_sets the number is larger and with other IP set sizes the Combined_IP varies slightly.
@stephenw10 said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
A partially populate table is probably a better description here.
That's a reasonable term.
Looking at the Resolver logs the missing alias table entries appear to correspond to
said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
IP_set3 table is empty however the log shows the actual 50 IP addresses are added but duplicates of "Adding Action: pf table: IP_set3 host:" but I think all 50 appear.
Similarly "Adding Action: pf table: IP_set2 host: " shows some duplicates. Not all actual IP addresses appear in the 2000 log entires. I was not able to readily tell if all 512 appear at least once in Adding Action: pf table: IP_set2 host:
-
@Patch said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
These IP_sets are then combined in Combined_IP alias (nested / hierarchical)
-
If anybody can distill two posts above this one, I'm happy to test.
-
Seems like I've replicated it.
I created a VM with 2.8.1.
I used easyrule to allow access on WAN.
I bypassed the GUI setup wizard.I created 4 aliases. IPs were created in Excel, enter the first and drag down 255 cells, then copy/paste into the Import in pfSense to create the alias.
alias_50_1: Host(s) 10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.2, 10.1.1.3, 10.1.1.4, 10.1.1.5, 10.1.1.6, 10.1.1.7, 10.1.1.8, 10.1.1.9, 10.1.1.10… (through .50) alias_50_2: Host(s) 10.2.2.1, 10.2.2.2, 10.2.2.3, 10.2.2.4, 10.2.2.5, 10.2.2.6, 10.2.2.7, 10.2.2.8, 10.2.2.9, 10.2.2.10… (through .50) alias_512: Host(s) 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2, 10.0.0.3, 10.0.0.4, 10.0.0.5, 10.0.0.6, 10.0.0.7, 10.0.0.8, 10.0.0.9, 10.0.0.10… (through .255 and 10.10.0.1-.255)Each of the first 3 ended with a hostname, e.g. pfsense.org.
alias_all: Host(s) alias_512, alias_50_1, alias_50_2If I click Apply and look at Diag > Tables, alias_512 shows:
Date of last update of table is unknown. 172 records....and ends at 10.0.0.170 but has the hostname for alias_512:
forum.netgate.com. 3 IN A 208.123.73.77Matching that, alias_all has 278 records.
The two "50" aliases do include the FQDN IPs (the third was netgate.com). So they seem correct. The alias_512 is missing most of its list. Which does show correctly if I edit the alias.
I did not need to reboot.
I'll make a follow on post momentarily. I can send or upload the config if desired but it seems easy enough.
-
If you run filter_reload does it fully populate?
Mixed mode aliases have been a problem in the past. I've long recommended not mixing IPs and FQDNs but I had thought those issues were resolved. Looks like we have a regression.
-
The first time I tried this I had an error in my list for alias_512. I accidentally scrolled two extra rows, leaving this in the import copy/paste:
10.10.0.256
10.10.0.257Obviously an error. Filterdns (DNS Resolver log) threw an error trying to resolve the "hostnames" since they are not IPs. The result was still the problem above, however, the results/numbers were slightly different and not off by two.
Deleting those and clicking Apply again reproduced the issue, hence my above post.
I'm not sure what that means but it seems odd that removing the two invalid IPs resulted in 1) several more (more than 2) additional IPs made it into the alias_512 table, and 2) the FQDN forum.netgate.com at the bottom of that list was resolved and its IPs also in that table. Even though 10.0.0.171-.255 and 10.10.0.1-.255 are not. Possibly an out of memory error and the "hostnames" take a bit more RAM than the last few IPs? I did try adding them back in again and the tables did not shrink as I expected.
Note also that as @Patch reported, the log shows the missing IPs being added:
Nov 7 01:34:37 filterdns 55828 Adding Action: pf table: alias_all host: 10.10.0.253 Nov 7 01:34:37 filterdns 55828 Adding Action: pf table: alias_all host: 10.10.0.254 Nov 7 01:34:37 filterdns 55828 Adding Action: pf table: alias_all host: 10.10.0.255 -
@stephenw10 said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
If you run filter_reload does it fully populate?
no.
Initializing Creating aliases Creating gateway group item... Generating Limiter rules Generating NAT rules Creating 1:1 rules... Creating outbound NAT rules Creating automatic outbound rules Setting up TFTP helper Generating filter rules Creating default rules Pre-caching Default allow LAN to any rule... Creating filter rule Default allow LAN to any rule ... Creating filter rules Default allow LAN to any rule ... Setting up pass/block rules Setting up pass/block rules Default allow LAN to any rule Creating rule Default allow LAN to any rule Pre-caching Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule... Creating filter rule Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule ... Creating filter rules Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule ... Setting up pass/block rules Setting up pass/block rules Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule Creating rule Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule Pre-caching Passed via EasyRule... Creating filter rule Passed via EasyRule ... Creating filter rules Passed via EasyRule ... Setting up pass/block rules Setting up pass/block rules Passed via EasyRule Creating rule Passed via EasyRule Creating IPsec rules... Generating ALTQ queues Loading filter rules Setting up logging information Setting up SCRUB information Processing down interface states Running plugins Done -
@stephenw10 said in Unexpected alias behaviour - two ranges:
not mixing IPs and FQDNs
If I remove forum.netgate.com from alias_512 then I get 618 records so I think it fully populates.
-
OK, weirder, I set the tunable for https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/filterdns-thread-errors.html to 4096, just to see. I applied it, and did a Filter Reload.
alias_512 now contains only 12 records, scattered through the list plus the last 7+FQDN:
10.0.0.138 10.10.0.1 10.10.0.58 10.10.0.249 10.10.0.250 10.10.0.251 10.10.0.252 10.10.0.253 10.10.0.254 10.10.0.255 208.123.73.77 2610:160:11:11::6However alias_all still contains 618 entries. Which makes me think it either was created successfully, or not updated at all.
-
- In my testing when editing alias, the old table entries are not deleted. But I agree sometimes not fully updated.
- I agree it can be reproduced without restarting, it's just that I found it harder to make sense of the data.
- I suspect deleting table data then filter reload would be equivalent.
- Configuration save and reload is a belts & braces approach used as I didn't know what part of pfsense was locking up initially.
- I get the same behaviour in pfsense 2.7.2 also. I looked as I wondered about a regression or new bug but could not confirm that.
