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

    Static routes puzzling me, inconsistent behaviour

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    12 Posts 2 Posters 6.1k 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.
    • H
      hoba
      last edited by

      Try to enable the following option at system>advanced: "Static route filtering: Bypass firewall rules for traffic on the same interface "

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • T
        tacfit
        last edited by

        Thanks, I'm afraid that's already enabled.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          hoba
          last edited by

          Are you using policybasedrouting/loadbalancing on that system as well?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            tacfit
            last edited by

            No sir, not on that one.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • H
              hoba
              last edited by

              Do yo use IPSEC on that system? If yes is there a tunneldefinition that is conflicting with a subnetrange of your routes? Also if so did you setup static routes for ipsec traffic? Or what is that comment for the one route that is cut off in that screenshot?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T
                tacfit
                last edited by

                Sorry, what I am thinking… the previous question regarding loadbalancing... YES we do. I've been working on a few separate problems today and so I got confused which firewall I was talking about. Sorry hoba, we do have load balancing in place, some firewall rules look at the load balancer, others the default routing (as is common).

                @hoba:

                Do yo use IPSEC on that system? If yes is there a tunneldefinition that is conflicting with a subnetrange of your routes? Also if so did you setup static routes for ipsec traffic? Or what is that comment for the one route that is cut off in that screenshot?

                No IPSEC. (I'm sure of it :) )

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • H
                  hoba
                  last edited by

                  If you have loadbalancer rules they redirect the traffic somewhere before it hit's the systems routingtable. To prevent this from happening create a networksalias with all your remote subnets (like the ones that you have in the routingtable or openvpn or ipsec subnets as well). Then create a firewallrule on top of all your other lan rules like "pass, protocol any, source any, destination <remote-networks-alias>, gateway default. Does it work now? This can be espacially tricky and needs to be done if you are working with loadbalance anything rules at the bottom of your firewallrules.</remote-networks-alias>

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    tacfit
                    last edited by

                    booyah! That works perfectly.

                    It makes sense why that's necessary, but I would really have thought static routes would get processed first. What is the issue there? Is it something I could create a bounty for someone to look into modifying, or is that an OS kinda thing?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • H
                      hoba
                      last edited by

                      If we would autoadd rules for static routes it would not be possible anymore to add blocks on them. Nothing that can be solved with a bounty. The firewallrules are processed first before the routingtable is hit. This is just something that you have to know.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • T
                        tacfit
                        last edited by

                        Fair enough.

                        Thanks a lot hoba, your knowledge is much appreciated.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.