Update pfsense 2.0.1 stable to 2.1 problem with routes
-
Do you have firewall rules to allow all this?
And what is the VPN type?
-
I've never had to add any rules to establish pfsense routes … But still, I tried to add that whatever comes from pfsense network ip 192.168.1.20 bound to use the 10.0.0.4 gateway and even with those. well .. There is a big bug because I'm looking at all options for the new pfsense 2.1 stable (install from scratch) and I see nothing. It's a simple route god!
-
Where is this VPN running and what kind of VPN is it?
-
where is the ip is 10.100.100.4 vpn, I said before the 10.0.0.4 for not posting the actual ip security of our network. In linux machine the vpn type is vpnc, but that's not important because it used to work on the other pfsense, is a route again.
I will flash images, even my real internal ips how desperate I am that I understand nothing.
ADD GATEWAY:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/bzd7.png/
ADD ROUTE:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/16c.png/
just in case, I added up a rule in pfsense lan but does not work well
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/f487.png/
repeat in pfsense 2.0.1 this works
-
the ip where I want to end, is 192.168.1.20, this in the linux server, 10.100.100.4, I mean right?
Sorry for my english.
Thanks for all.
-
Trying to route in and out of the same interface.
The firewall rule you would need is:
source: LANnet destination: 192.168.1.20 allow gateway: system default10.100.100.4 is not in the 10.0.0.1/16 subnet
Steve
-
10.0.0.1/16 network that I commented that it was fictional, it was not real, was to simulate my local network to not put my ips internal rank for SAFETY!
IP REAL:
LAN PFSENSE: 10.100.100.3
IP LINUX VPNC: 10.100.100.4
IP where I'm going, which is connected to the vpn 10.100.100.4: 192.168.1.20http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/9b7f.png/
clearer the water …
-
Is more, from pfsense if I get to the IP 192.168.1.20
[2.1-RELEASE][root@pfsense-mo2o-ketchum.mo2o.com]/root(1): ping 192.168.1.20
PING 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=127 time=50.328 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=127 time=46.436 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=127 time=43.714 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=127 time=46.687 msIs more:
netstat -ar return:
192.168.1.20/32 10.100.100.4 UGS 0 6 em0
From ip host lan pfsense, for example, 10.100.100.200, try to traceroute:
root@pre:~# traceroute 192.168.1.20
traceroute to 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 isp (ip public isp) 1.534 ms 1.592 ms 1.611 ms
2 isp (ip public isp) 2.107 ms 2.199 ms 2.234 ms
3 192.168.66.121 (192.168.66.121) 2.747 ms 2.847 ms 2.868 ms^CPfsense not route working…
This routed me to the internet instead of enrutarme to 10.100.100.4 to reach 192.168.1.20, I have explained well. I think I can explain and better.
What is the problem?? I dont understand anything...
-
Is more,
I shutdown pfsense 2.1, and I turned on pfsense 2.0.1 I had a backup before performing the upgrade. And look …
root@pre:~# ping 192.168.1.20
PING 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 10.100.100.3: icmp_seq=1 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 10.100.100.4)
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_req=1 ttl=127 time=28.7 ms
From 10.100.100.3: icmp_seq=2 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 10.100.100.4)
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_req=2 ttl=127 time=28.3 ms
From 10.100.100.3: icmp_seq=3 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 10.100.100.4)
64 bytes from 192.168.1.20: icmp_req=3 ttl=127 time=29.8 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.20 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 28.399/28.989/29.840/0.616 ms
root@pre:~# traceroute 192.168.1.20
traceroute to 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 10.100.100.3 (10.100.100.3) 0.577 ms 0.600 ms 0.631 ms
2 10.100.100.4 (10.100.100.4) 0.766 ms 0.826 ms 0.897 ms
3 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20) 31.176 ms 31.609 ms 31.779 mscame perfectly to 192.168.1.20
BUG PFSENSE 2.1 ROUTES???
-
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/ynvc.png/
-
Not related to your issue, but is better if you attach the screenshots directly to your post reply, instead of imageshack ;)
-
Worth, and you have to see what these commenting me photo to the problem that I have … There is a piece of bug in pfsense, I assure you.
-
For the moment and to take my headaches, I have set up the backup pfsense routes 2.0.3 stable and work well. Until we solve this BUG, we will continue with this version.
-
root@pre:~# traceroute 192.168.1.20
traceroute to 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 isp (ip public isp) 1.534 ms 1.592 ms 1.611 ms
2 isp (ip public isp) 2.107 ms 2.199 ms 2.234 ms
3 192.168.66.121 (192.168.66.121) 2.747 ms 2.847 ms 2.868 ms^CWhere is the machine in this traceroute, 192.168.66.121? That is also in the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet. It's not surprising pfSense is getting confused if it can access that subnet via both gateways.
Why does ping work but traceroute doesn't. :-\ Edit: Misread that.Steve
-
Ip that is not ours, I teach a traceroute goes from pfsense 2.0.3:
[2.0.3-RELEASE] [admin@pfsense-mo2o-ketchum.mo2o.com] / root (1): traceroute 192.168.1.20
traceroute to 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 10.100.100.4 (10.100.100.4) 1,020 ms 0.615 ms 0.586 ms
2 * 192.168.1.20 (192.168.1.20) 28.836 ms 37.787 msAll ok not see? While the traffic routes. Pfsense 2.1 The problem is that when I try to get from an internal host to the ip 192.168.1.20 instead of route to 10.100.100.4, I routed to our wan. What makes it completely wrong.
It's the same rule for pfsense 2.0.3 to 2.1 that is more I tried to delete it and recreate it. Hallucinate with pfsense 2.1 not understand anything. I assure you the route is straight.
Probe a facility from 0 to pfsense 2.1 stable instead of doing an upgrade, and import the configuration xml, yet not strip.
I do not know what else to do, so as a need for programmers routes, will continue with pfsense 2.0.1 until they fix the bug, although they say it's not a bug.
Sorry for my english.
Thanks for all, true.
-
It seems very strange to me that you have a private subnet somewhere upstream of your public WAN IP.
You need to look at the pfSense routing table and see if it has somehow acquired a route to 192.168.. on the WAN. Perhaps via some new routing protocol introduced in 2.1.
Normally if you had specified a gateway in the firewall rule, and that rule is actually catching the traffic, then it can only use that gateway. However there is a background rule that will by-pass that for local networks the 'negate rule'. You can turn it off in System: Advanced: Firewall/NAT. That also existed in 2.0.3 but perhaps it didn't recognise it as local there.
In 2.0.3 do you need to have a firewall rule specifying a gateway?
Specifying a gateway on the same interface that the traffic arrives is the sort of thing that can fail to work. See NAT reflection for example.
Steve
-
I spent alone with the IP 192.168.1.20, it happens with all routes. A little weird right? Indeed, for fanjar this topic I say I've tried to add the same routes to pfsense 2.1 BETA and I have worked flawlessly. Pfsense 2.1 if stable has a bug or if, or add something new to fuck routes because it does not work any of the 4 that I have on pfsense 2.1 stable. There is a bit weird that I work perfectly in pfsense routes 2.0.1 stable and 2.1 BETA!
Thanks for everything.
-
Same problem her. In 2.0.3 routes work fine, in 2.1 do not!
Test upgrading in place and fresh install, both not work. -
The same sort of static routes to an internal gateway?
Steve
-
Yep! two Pfsense with Wan in same network.
