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

    Update pfsense 2.0.1 stable to 2.1 problem with routes

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software
    74 Posts 16 Posters 30.3k 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.
    • M
      maykel535
      last edited by

      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

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • M
        maykel535
        last edited by

        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.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          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 default

          10.100.100.4 is not in the 10.0.0.1/16 subnet

          Steve

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            maykel535
            last edited by

            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: 192.168.1.20

            http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/9b7f.png/

            clearer the water …

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              maykel535
              last edited by

              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 ms

              Is 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^C

              Pfsense 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...

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                maykel535
                last edited by

                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 ms

                came perfectly to 192.168.1.20

                BUG PFSENSE 2.1 ROUTES???

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  maykel535
                  last edited by

                  http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/ynvc.png/

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • pttP
                    ptt Rebel Alliance
                    last edited by

                    @maykel535

                    Not related to your issue, but is better if you attach the screenshots directly to your post reply, instead of imageshack ;)

                    attach.PNG
                    attach.PNG_thumb

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      maykel535
                      last edited by

                      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.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        maykel535
                        last edited by

                        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.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stephenw10S
                          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                          last edited by

                          @maykel535:

                          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^C

                          Where 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

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            maykel535
                            last edited by

                            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 ms

                            All 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.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • stephenw10S
                              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                              last edited by

                              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

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • M
                                maykel535
                                last edited by

                                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.

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

                                  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.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • stephenw10S
                                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                    last edited by

                                    The same sort of static routes to an internal gateway?

                                    Steve

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

                                      Yep! two Pfsense with Wan in same network.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • stephenw10S
                                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                        last edited by

                                        Can you specify the routes and under what conditions they don't work? For example maykel535 was able to use the route from the pfSense box itself but not from a client in the same subnet as the gateway.

                                        Steve

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          maykel535
                                          last edited by

                                          do not compliqueis more, I can not lose more time with this because in pfsense 2.1 BETA works. Something as simple as a route, I can not lose more time. There is a bug and I just want to help you solve … A shame since pfsense 2.1 stable comes with a amount of improvements as MultiWAN dynamic dns and a bunch of bug fixes.

                                          The real problem is that instead routes of enrutarte to the host that is, it takes you out to the wan and not because there is anything wrong, but simply routed bad this version of pfsense 2.1

                                          We will have to wait ...

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • _
                                            __Fox__
                                            last edited by

                                            any officiale update or replay to this problem?
                                            Upgrading to 2.1 in multi WAN-LAN configuration is a hell!

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