2 Issues with pfSense 1.2 RC3
-
(2) virtual ip's (aka VIP) for this is CARP not Proxy Arp; I suppose this is the only way to get it to work? based on my previous posting I had to set up by VIP with Proxp ARP to get my 1:1 to go across for various services (HTTP, HTTPS, RDP, PPTP, SMTP, etc) with various servers - I have maybe 8 servers that require the same exact ports open and translated using 1:1 Proxy ARP per previous suggestion. I guess my question here is since I have static mappings going 1:1 in a range, should I remove my Proxy ARP and change to a RANGE as you have there using CARP, then manually taking care of the actual mappings of each port at the firewall rules level?
Here are my Caveats:
- I haven't had the need to setup more than one ftp server behind a single pfSense.
- I generally use port-forward instead of 1-1 NAT, as I like to create duplicate port-forwards for each WAN and AFAIK, you can't do that with 1-1's.
- I'm more concerned with outbound ftp than inbound- if someone wants data from a network I manage, I'm in a better position to insist they use something other than ftp. I view outbound ftp as a necessary evil.
So far, the only outbound issues I've had have been with dual-wan (which is fixed by adding the rule which allows traffic to the ftp proxy process listening on loopback) and a few times where I've seen the pftpx process die. That's why I asked about the pftpx process in ps. I've only seen it a few times, and they were pre-1.2 builds, but I fixed it by disabling the ftp helper on the LAN, saving, then re-enabling.
CARP addresses are added singly, but require the correct subnet mask. I thought the issue with proxy-arp's was that you couldn't run the ftp-helper on them, but I'm not sure. My thought is that a 1-1 NAT would be better suited for running an FTP server than port-forwards, but can't confirm that from experience.
'FTP Hack' is just what I named the rule that makes sure traffic reaches the ftp proxy running on loopback.
(TCP LAN-net * 127.0.0.1/31 * *) -
again, thx for the time in explaining your configs and your ideas; however, in my configuration it seems this will not work. I see how you got it to work with port forwards but since I truly use 1:1 instead of port forwards (which is for single server/port solution). I'm really back to my original post…I will have to further test additional ideas over the weekend. MY config is dramatically different in that I have port 80/443/25/3389/20/21 for almost all my servers hence I use 1:1 proxy arps. for those that do not know - 1:1 = I have 10 useable public ip's and I have them mapped to 10 internal servers - all different servers but same services (http,https, smtp, etc); hence port forward not suitable as it can not handle more than one server/port.
-
Guys,
I am in EXACTLY the same boat, but with a different config… My issue is even simpler (I believe) as I'm not trying to host FTP, simply USE ftp from LAN... I am Dual WAN, HA / CARP VIPs... 80 / 443 / 3389 perform perfectly and failover perfectly, even with 5,000 active sessions. The outbound NAT works great to keep my source IP the same regardless of which box is MASTER... I simply can't FTP out - I get a login and then the session dies.....
I tried to strip down my VIPs, NAT FORWARD and NAT OUTBOUND and RULES, push FTP helper off and on (on LAN) and rebuild the entire thing under the assumption that it is somehow an "ordering" issue since FTP HELPER was disabled on LAN by default... All that did was completely hose up my boxes to the point where they would not function in or out for any port... I had to restore from backup configs and am back on-line, but still no FTP...
Why in the world is this so hard??? Very frustrating. Why is the order so important when building...
Can you please confirm that the loopback rule (TCP LAN-net * 127.0.0.1/31 * *) suggested above is for the LAN interface?
-
Is is possible that doing an upgrade from 1.0.1 rather than a clean install of 1.2 RC3 is causing my FTP hell?
-
That's why I asked about the pftpx process in ps.
I followed that pointer, thanks. I ran the command in the shell and got some feedback that I couldn't interpret. But there was one line and you said to expect one per Helper-Enabled Interface, so that seemed right to me.
-
See also:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,6107.0.html
Which I'm having a hard time understanding…
-
This issue seems to go WAY back:
http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion@pfsense.com/msg01852.html
-
FTP (outbound) works fine here. Granted we only have one WAN, one LAN(vlan), and one OPT(vlan). The FTP helper etc. is DISBALED on all interfaces. No special port forwards/firewall rules on 21 or anything like that. We just had to tinker with the ftp proxy option on different interfaces but we got there. Lucky for us we were one of the 99% user error category.
-
Thanks mhab12.
Could you provide some detail on the "tinker with the FTP proxy options" for me?
-
Tinker with the FTP proxy options = Toggle the FTP proxy option on and off in various combinations across all your interfaces.
-
Okay… In the newest version I think it's called "FTP Helper", so I'm assuming we're talking about the same thing.
Thanks for your help.
-
FTP Helper is a FTP Proxy. It is called "FTP Helper" in the GUI but it's basically a proxy.
-
Thanks. At this point, I've come to the conclusion there are some very serious bugs in the FTP HELPER (proxy) in PFSense 1.2 RC3. I know many people have posted that they have it working, but I've now put over 40 hours into this single issue (yes, it's crazy) and I simply can't get it to work with my config. I'm thinking it has to do with being Multi-WAN and CARP…
I am, sadly, going to back-out my PFSense HA implementation and go back to SmoothWall until I can get FTP working on the bench. I had neglected to test FTP before putting this into production (my bad), and had also assumed this would not be a big deal. From the volume of posts around, it certainly IS a big deal. My personal belief is that it will hold this software back until addressed. I know what the sentiment is for FTP, and I don't disagree on technical grounds, but it's simply used too much by big corporate players today to be overlooked...
When I get back on SmoothWall, I will start removing pieces of my PFSense config to see if I can isolate exactly where FTP dies on the bench. I'm going to try a single-WAN / CARP config next... See if that works. If it doesn't I will try single-WAN single PFSense, see if that works. Sure hope the larger community decides FTP needs attention before RC3 becomes a real release....
All the input and time responding to my questions is deeply appreciated.
-
Thats strange as I know of NO FTP bugs…. Maybe you should walk through http://devwiki.pfsense.org/FTPTroubleShooting first.
-
When I get back on SmoothWall, I will start removing pieces of my PFSense config to see if I can isolate exactly where FTP dies on the bench. I'm going to try a single-WAN / CARP config next… See if that works. If it doesn't I will try single-WAN single PFSense, see if that works. Sure hope the larger community decides FTP needs attention before RC3 becomes a real release....
IMO It's always a good practice to do a test with as default install as possible first. If that works one can move closer to one's intended install until it breaks. Then report what has been done so it is possible to duplicate.
I do also appreciate when software is released, that known limits is shown beside features.
just my 2 cent…..
-
Thats strange as I know of NO FTP bugs…. Maybe you should walk through http://devwiki.pfsense.org/FTPTroubleShooting first.
Thanks… But I've been through that like 6 times.
-
Thats strange as I know of NO FTP bugs…. Maybe you should walk through http://devwiki.pfsense.org/FTPTroubleShooting first.
Thanks… But I've been through that like 6 times.
Well thats fine but it really does fix 99% of the edge cases. I Honestly see nothing strange with your configuration. So suit yourself.
-
Thats strange as I know of NO FTP bugs…. Maybe you should walk through http://devwiki.pfsense.org/FTPTroubleShooting first.
Thanks… But I've been through that like 6 times.
Well thats fine but it really does fix 99% of the edge cases. I Honestly see nothing strange with your configuration. So suit yourself.
Gotta love being the 1 exception in 100!! ;D Believe me when I tell you that I would LOVE to have done something to mess this up because that would mean that I could fix it. I will take all of the above suggestions about starting from factory install (again) and building up with FTP tests at every change.. I will report that data back as I would hope it could help the community or someone else hitting this same wall.
-
Okay, as promised, I wanted to report back on my efforts to find EXACTLY where my FTP problem came into play. As mentioned above, I had to back-out my implementation of PFSense from production so I could do the experimentation on the bench. As suggested, I started building from the factory install up to see where it was.. And, thankfully, I found it.
Also as promised, I'm ready to eat crow and firmly admit that this was user-driven. I made a very small config change that caused this. Yes, totally my fault (which is actually what I was hoping for)… But for others who might hit this, I wanted to document it because nothing I read pointed me to this outcome and I sunk over 40 hours of time into this.
MY CONFIG: Dual-WAN, Dual PFSense boxes with CARP for high-availability fail-over using Virtual IPs for both WAN interfaces (WAN and OPT1) and a Virtual IP for the LAN interface (Default Gateway for all clients on LAN). CARP running over OPT2 with a cross-over cable. PORT FORWARDS for 80 and 443 and Firewall rules to allow traffic on both WANs for web servers. I use an OUTBOUND NAT (FIREWALL / NAT / OUTBOUND) on both WANs so that the source IP for outbound traffic was consistent regardless of which physical box was MASTER (otherwise the source is the address on the interface). This is important if you run any web services that verify your source IP or a VPN tunnel, etc. Additionally, I wanted all LAN traffic to appear to come from the default gateway and not the interface of the box that was MASTER, so I had an outbound NAT on the LAN as well.... FTP HELPER is DISABLED (checked) on all interfaces except LAN (where it is active) as the directions state.
FTP BEHAVIOR: I was able to initiate an FTP session from inside LAN to an FTP server on the internet. I could log in successfully. However, as soon as I did a GET, PUT or DIR, the session hung and eventually timed out.
MY MISTAKE THAT BROKE FTP: In the Outbound NAT on WAN, you CAN NOT have the source IP be *... This will kill the FTP helper / proxy. The source in the rule for the outbound NAT needs to be your specific LAN NETWORK (10.1.1.0 / 24 in my case). Even with the loopback rule in place (as the directions state), FTP will not function. After I changed the OUTBOUND NAT rule SOURCE to 10.1.1.0 / 24, my FTP sessions (PUT, GET and DIR) all worked instantly.
After thinking about this for a while, I think I see why it killed FTP. From what I've read, FTP needs a second port to operate. This is what the FTP helper manages. With my OUTBOUND NAT rule set to source = * that second sessions must have been messed up somehow. This would explain why my login would work, but the PUT / GET / DIR would not.. I dunno. That's about the best I can explain it. The good news is that PFSence auto-defaulted to the right setting. So let it do it's thing..
So I'm sure many here are not surprised with this outcome. My lesson (once again): Change as little as possible no matter how little you think the change is... It might bite you! Also, freely admit in your early posts that the problem is likely you ;-)
And I thank everybody for their input. I'm now officially in support of the FTP functionality in PFSense (not that anyone asked) for my config above. We've migrated it back into production and tested failover with great success. We are running about 1,000,000 page loads a day (about 4,000 sessions at any one time) and this software works great on 4 year-old desktops (1.8 Ghz PIV 500 Megs RAM). Given that it's free, this is simply amazing to me..
Thanks again...
-
Thanks for the follow up! Stickying this topic.